Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

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: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:30 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:.......

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.


The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn't see anything.

"Isn't it a beautiful piece of goods?" the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern.

"I know I'm not stupid," the man thought, "so it must be that I'm unworthy of my good office. That's strange. I mustn't let anyone find it out, though." So he praised the material he did not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, "It held me spellbound."

http://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/T ... hes_e.html
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:49 pm

MosaicDave wrote:I don't quite understand you,


Dave, did you not see this in my first response on this thread?
Both of these respective hypotheses predict that air will rise, especially immediately after it evaporates. So this experiment doesn't distinguish between the respective positions/hypotheses. Meteorology maintains that it rises due to buoyancy (gravity). I say it rises due to electrostatic charges which I assume (I don't actually know) are prevalent in our atmosphere.


Do you need me to explain it to you more explicitly? Think carefully about what is being said here.

Your experiment didn't contradict my hypothesis/assertion, it confirmed it. Unfortunately it also confirmed the meteorological alternative.

I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces. Meteorology maintains that moist air, being lighter, rises due to buoyancy. BOTH HYPOTHESES PREDICT MOIST AIR WILL RISE. Your experiment FAILED to distinguish between these two competing hypothesis in that BOTH PREDICT MOIST AIR RISING!!!

Now do you get it?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby MosaicDave » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:01 pm

jimmcginn wrote:But there are a number of good reasons why I should not do the experiment.
1) .........
2) .........
..........
As explained in the first paragraph of my book that you read, people generally refuse to consider evidence that contradicts what they believe.
.........


Image
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby MosaicDave » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:05 pm

jimmcginn wrote:I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces
.......
Now do you get it?

Yes. I already explained to you how to take care of that with some window screening from the hardware store. The cost should be well under $1,000.

Anyway, if your shoes (or bottles) are wet, make sure to leave them standing up!
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:16 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:But there are a number of good reasons why I should not do the experiment.
1) .........
2) .........
..........
As explained in the first paragraph of my book that you read, people generally refuse to consider evidence that contradicts what they believe.
.........


Image


I don't know what you problem is, dude. I've always maintained that evaporation is upward.

Your experiment failed to dispute my hypothesis. Here is a better experiment. As I indicated to Frank, if you are interested in doing this experiment I can assist, but from a distance. (I don't want there to be any doubt that I did not contaminate the results.)

Procedures and Methods for Measuring (Testing) the Weight of Moist Air Versus Dry Air
by James McGinn of Solving Tornadoes

Purpose: Compare the Weight of Moist Air Versus Dry Air (all other factors
being controlled)

Materials needed:
Two Mason jars
One square foot of Aluminum foil
Fishing line, one yard, scissors
Cotton ball
Distilled water, one ounce
Access to warm, dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting
Extremely sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in
weight between mason jars

Procedures:
1) In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up a table.

2) Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around a
cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be lowered into
an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with cotton or precipitate
from the water droplet.

3) Open two of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance. Put lids back
on. Weigh each one. Take lids off again.

4) In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a drop
of distilled water. Be sure to allow for it to breath so that moisture to
evaporate out of it.

5) Lower both of these thingies into two of the jars.

6) Turn the lids upside down for all three jars and place them over the top
of the jars, this will trap any moisture and prevent it from "convecting"
away. Wait for ten minutes, or so, allowing for evaporation.

7) By now moisture should have evaporated from the thingies into the mason
jars. This should have increased the moisture level in the one jar, the
moisture having pushed out an equal number of air particles. And it should
have left it unchanged in the other jars.

8) Carefully remove the thingies and screw the top on the jars tightly. Be
sure to only handle jars with latex gloves, don't tape or glue anything to
jars. Put jars in plastic bags to protect them from contamination.
Distinguishing marks can be put on the plastic bags, not the jars.

9) Weigh the mason jars and record their respective weights

10) Evaluate data.

If the moist air jar is heavier (as I claim) then my premise is proven. If
it is lighter then the traditional understanding is proven. If there is no
measurable different then more precise scales are needed.

The only complicating factors are finding a dry, windless environment and
getting scales that have the range and sensitivity.


Dave, if you want to do this experiment let me know. Maybe we could set up a crowd funding campaign to pay for the scales and the dry room.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:23 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces
.......
Now do you get it?

Yes. I already explained to you how to take care of that with some window screening from the hardware store.


There is no way to know that this would be effective.

And, like I said, there is no reason for me to do the experiment since nobody would believe my results anywa

If you are going to get angry with anybody for not doing this experiment then I suggest you direct your anger at meteorology. They are the ones that are making the extraordinary claim that the moisture in clear, moist air is gaseous, not me. They are the ones that are ignoring the know boiling temperature of H2O, not me.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:20 am

jimmcginn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:25 
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.

 
Item#1 , Please show the simple math?
As far as I know nobody disputes water boils. It's your miss-aplications of it that is disputed.

Item#2, You had time for all the video lectures and spending time writing books and defending criticisms on forums. It really strikes me as a lack of passion and dedication on your part.

Item#3, If you accepted other people's work, admitting you had falsification issues to work out, you might attain validity as an investigator.

As far as plant operations I'm not an operator, my post retirement ocupation is control systems tech(same line of pre retirement work). But I do assist lab wiennies in troubleshooting their equipment now and then.

As far and your current and previous request to do your experiment for you?

MosaicDave saved us lots of frustrating trial and error of making your methodology work (Repeatable results would be like pulling on a slot machine IMO). He demonstrated the boyency of humid vs dry air, without scales. His results are simple and repeatable and consistant.
This is the example you must follow to come up with good results. IMO.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:57 am

fosborn_ wrote:<snip>
This is the example you must follow to come up with good results. IMO.

I will never, ever do this experiment.

If I did this experiment and got the results I know I would get the loons would come out of the woodwork and continue to drag my reputation through the mud with more fervor than they have already. Not only would none of them attempt to replicate my experiment but they would scare off anybody that was so inclined. Most significantly, the ensuing controversy would provide people like yourself an excuse to shift your focus away from thinking about why you believe what you can't explain.

If Galileo didn't have a telescope he would not have been imprisoned.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:49 am

Mosaic Dave Retracted His Original Claim in this Thread

On another forum I pointed to this thread as an example of somebody, Mosaic Dave, having failed to disprove my assertion that the moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temperatures/pressures) is actually liquid (nano-droplets) and not gaseous as is generally assumed. I reread the thread and reconfirmed that that is actually what transpired; in his original analysis/explanation of the experiment Dave mistakenly assumed that the upward movement of moist air could only be caused by it being relatively lighter and convecting up through the neck of the bottle as it was replaced by heavier dry air coming in. I explained that, actually, the moist air was heavier than the surrounding drier air and the reason it moved upward was as a result of electrostatic forces that come from above and that themselves are an implication of the solar wind that constantly enters earth's atmosphere from above. And so, this explains not only how heavier moist air travels upward but it also explains how/why this heavier moist air would be blocked or trapped when the bottle was inverted. I also pointed out that Mosaic Dave acknowledged this explanation and effectively retracted his original claim that this experiment proved that moist air is lighter.

If anybody else upon reading this thread comes to a conclusion that contradicts this assessment of what transpired in this thread then please feel free to point out what it is that I must have missed.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby MosaicDave » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:03 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Mosaic Dave Retracted His Original Claim in this Thread

No, I didn't.
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:00 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Mosaic Dave Retracted His Original Claim in this Thread

No, I didn't.

Wow, that was a fast response. Thanks.

Well, what I mean is that you effectively made a retraction in that you acknowledged that you, inadvertently, mischaracterized my position in the first post of the thread. Therein you stated the following:
I was informed by Mr. Charles Chandler that in fact, according to modern science, humid air is less dense and will rise. Well I realized I had never actually thought about this... but, it seemed to be correct, and all my years of upside down shoes nothing but foolishness. Then again, now here was McGinn, arguing that actually the moist air was heavier, and would drain best downwards from my shoes and gloves.

And so, the first part of your characterization of my position was accurate. But the second part was not. You correctly stated that I maintained (as I still do) that moist air is heavier than drier air. But--as i explained in the thread--you mistakenly mischaracterized my assumption about the upward movement of moist air (in the troposphere) as being a result of convection/buoyancy when actually my position is that this movement is a result of electrostatic forces (as I explained explicitly in the thread):
I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces
.......
Now do you get it?

Dave:
Yes.

And so, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, you effectively did retract your claim that I maintained the convection/buoyancy model of movement of moist air. (Actually, if you had read my other posts here on thunderbolts forum more carefully you would have realized that I have never maintained convection/buoyancy as an explanation of the upward movement of moist air in earth's atmosphere.)

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

BTW, if anybody is interested. The notion that the moisture in moist air is suspended by electrostatic forces is not a notion that I discovered but was originally proposed by none other than Wallace Thornhill in an obscure blog post that I encountered all the way back in 2012, as I explain here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =8&t=16597
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby MosaicDave » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:24 pm

I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces
.......
Now do you get it?

Dave:
Yes.

Well there it is right there: You maintain so-and-so, and ask if I get it. Yes, I do get that you maintain this. But I don't agree that it's correct.

By the way you are also attempting to quote Wallace Thornhill in support of your conjecture, while misunderstanding what he wrote; he is proposing that clouds might be suspended by an electric field, not humid air.
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:02 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
I maintain that heavier moist air rises due to electrostatic forces
.......
Now do you get it?

Dave:
Yes.

Well there it is right there: You maintain so-and-so, and ask if I get it. Yes, I do get that you maintain this. But I don't agree that it's correct.

Yes. I realize this. I just wanted to clear up any residual misunderstanding that originated when you paraphrase my thinking in the first post on this thread. And I didn't mean to imply that you agreed that it is correct.

By the way you are also attempting to quote Wallace Thornhill in support of your conjecture, while misunderstanding what he wrote; he is proposing that clouds might be suspended by an electric field, not humid air.

Hmm. Yes, I see what you mean. I was assuming that he lumped them (liquid nano-droplets in clear moist air and larger micro-droplets in [visible] clouds) together as do I. And that may not be the case. Mostly though I wanted it to be clear that i was not claiming credit for an initial discovery that I didn't make. I made the realization around 2012. His webpage is dated around 2004.

Regards,

Jim McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:00 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote: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.
[

Actually, no this was not the case. I made the realization that convection was nonsense as early as 2007, which was long before I was anything but remotely aware of the mysteries surrounding H bonding (water structure problem). But the realization that convection was nonsense created a void. It left me without an explanation as to what powers storms. And this also made me more intensely aware of the absence of any explanation for the structure witnessed in thunderstorm, hurricanes and tornadoes. And all of this led to a conjecture that the surface tension properties of H2O must be instrumental in the realization (emergence) of structures associated with storms. And this led to me looking more closely into H bonding. And this eventually led me to the breakthrough discovery in regards to H bonding.
Which notion you've never explained, and certainly not in any way that involves any math, because it's "complicated".

Yes, it's a complex topic. And it is extremely counterintuitive.
Though you think you could explain it in "about a week" if someone would listen to your lectures.

Yes, as is generally the case with notions that are extremely counterintuitive.
-- Your conception leads to a prediction, which is contradicted by experiment.

Feel free to make a detailed argument to that effect.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:00 am

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... loat-when/

Scientific American.

Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!
So by the same logic I should be able to distribute 100 10kg gold bars in the same cubic kilometre which would weigh a total of 1,000kg. This gold is 1,000 times lighter than the water and 1,000,000 times lighter than the air and should therefore float above the cloud. Mathematics has proven this to be true.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron