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 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:08 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
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.

LOL. Good one. I don't know if you read the comments at the end of that Scientific American article that you quoted. Both of them were highly critical of the author. One of them made the same point that you are making here.

In his defense, as a card carrying meteorologists he is in the position of having to express support for a notion that underlies one of the most arrogantly nonrational models in all of science, the convection model of storm theory.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:44 am

MosaicDave wrote:James McGinn on these forums has advanced the conjecture, that liquid water evaporates not as a monomolecular gas, as customarily assumed, but in the form of "microdroplets" - liquid clusters of two or more water molecules held in cohesion by hydrogen bonding. Deriving directly from this is the hypothesis that moist air is heavier than dry air, again contrary to the customary assumption that moist air is lighter: Conventional science reasons that evaporated water forms a gas of single water molecules which mix with the other gases in air; that the molecular weight of H2O is less than that of the primary air constituents O2 and N2; that therefore the addition of water vapor makes the air less dense. McGinn proposes in contrast that microdroplets of N water molecules will behave as larger molecules with molecular weight N times the molecular weight of water; that these heavier pseudo-molecules will therefore make moist air heavier than air devoid of water. Or so I take the liberty of paraphrasing McGinn's ideas.

McGinn has stated in support of the microdroplet conjecture, that the high level of intermolecular hydrogen bonding in liquid water creates the circumstance that actually it requires more energy to remove a single water molecule from the surface of liquid water, than that required to remove a cluster of two or more water molecules, in which the hydrogen bonding would be partially "neutralized". Now I will say, that I found there to be a certain seductive attraction to this revolutionary idea - could it really be true? I have no idea quantitatively how much energy it takes to remove a molecule or a cluster of them from a liquid surface. But the concept has a certain ring to it hinting at the possibility of an undiscovered truth. So it appeals to me according to my ways of thinking, similarly to other diverse non-mainstream notions: vast cosmic electrical currents in space; the world trade centers destroyed by controlled demolition; the Cheops Pyramid as not a tomb but some type of Machine built according to principles lost to modern science; etcetera.

But even more poignantly, I felt the question of the density of moist air to be of critical and direct importance to my own life: For years upon years, when my shoes were wet, I would lay them down to dry them: Because it always "seemed to me" that, well, of course the humid air inside the shoes would be denser than the surrounding air, and so sort of "drain out" faster that way, with the shoes lying down. I did the same always with wet gloves, balancing them with the fingers pointing up. I trained my kids to do this as well, educating them ad nauseum on the best way to position gloves and shoes for proper drying. (My wife resisted such training.)

But then, again reading on this very forum, 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.

I was much troubled by this question, and resolved to determine the true answer. But it is not easy to make a direct and accurate measurement of the difference in density of moist versus dry air. You can try to create some rigid container, and weigh it containing dry and then moist air. But just some rough calculations will show that this requires making uncommonly precise measurements of weight, in addition to other practical difficulties. Similar problems arise in any related methods.

Long I considered how to contrive some clear and valid experiment; finally the following method occurred to me:

I took two clean glass bottles, and wet them thoroughly inside, drying their outsides. I suspended them both upside down for several hours, to allow any dripping water to drain out. This left in each bottle, a random assortment of remaining water droplets, adhering to the inner walls. Then I inverted one of the bottles - so that now one was suspended upside down with the neck facing down, the other upright with the neck facing upwards.

Now, I reasoned, if the humid air is less dense, it will rise out of the upright bottle, and that one will dry first. If the humid air is more dense, it will drain out of the upside down bottle, and _that_ one will dry first. In either case the humid air will be trapped in the contrary bottle, and delay its drying.

Some complications to consider:

-- There is the possibility that water continues to drain out of the inverted bottle. This would assist the drying of the inverted bottle, and therefore favor the "heavy humid air" hypothesis. Therefore I shook as much water as possible out of both bottles at the beginning of the experiment, and made sure to let them both drain upside down together for several hours. But still it would be a consideration to keep in mind.

-- Evaporation will cool both bottles. Again this will favor the drying of the upside-down bottle and the "heavy humid air" hypothesis. Something else to keep in mind.

The typical result of a trial of this experiment, I illustrate with the following image:

Image

The full resolution image, by the way, I've uploaded to my website, so it's accesible here:

http://mosaicengineering.com/images/water/bottles.jpg

As shown, there is a lot of moisture remaining in the inverted bottle, whereas the upright bottle is fully and completely free of any visible water.

So it seems that humid air is less dense than dry air after all.

In this case, the bottles were left in the shown position overnight. This is a room that I keep dehumidified and dust free with air filters, so it's quite climate controlled. However for the duration of the experiment all air conditioning, heating, fans, and filters were turned off, so the air in the room was still apart from normal thermal convection.

Actually I tried this several times: Sometimes with the bottles positioned so their necks were at the same level; sometimes positioned so the bodies of the bottles were at the same level; sometimes switching which bottle was inverted, in case somehow one bottle had more mineral deposits on the inner walls, or otherwise retained more adhered water than the other for some reason.

But always the result was the same - in the morning the upright bottle was dry; the inverted bottle was still wet.

Henceforth I shall leave my shoes upright to dry, and try to educate my children to do likewise.

--dc

Sense the thread has been derailed, just a reminder of what it's about.
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: 481
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:20 pm

Mosaic Dave: Or so I take the liberty of paraphrasing McGinn's ideas.

James McGinn: Hopefully after this experience you will take more care to represent my ideas accurately.

Mosaic Dave: McGinn has stated . . . it requires more energy to remove a single water molecule from the surface of liquid water, than that required to remove a cluster of two or more water molecules, in which the hydrogen bonding would be partially "neutralized".

James McGinn: Yes, and I stand by this assertion.

Mosaic Dave: I was informed by Mr. Charles Chandler that in fact, according to modern science, humid air is less dense and will rise.

James McGinn: It is not a modern notion. It was a conjecture that was put forth before the American Civil War by a storm-based thinker/enthusiast/evangelist named Walter James Espy. The notion was never determined empirically but was assumed by way of an anecdotal analogy between observation of thunderstorms and observation of a pot boiling on a stove. (I suspect the prevalence of steam-based locomotion was also influential.)

Mosaic Dave: now here was McGinn, arguing that actually the moist air was heavier,

James McGinn: Right. And, as I've explained previously, this conclusion follows naturally and inevitably from the realization that the atmosphere is too cool to support steam combined with proper application of Avogadro's Law.

Mosaic Dave: and would drain (evaporate) best downwards from my shoes and gloves.

James McGinn: Wrong. I never claimed that evaporation was a downward process. And if you think about it that doesn't make any sense. I said that evaporation had nothing to do with convection and was actually caused by electrostatic forces in the atmosphere. How in the world you got this wrong I will never understand because i've never even eluded to convection as a cause of the gradual upwelling of moist air in the atmosphere. Moreover--and even though you did not refer to it here--I certainly never asserted that convection explained the power of storms--a notion that is even more preposterous than the notion that convection explains the gradual upwelling associated with evaporation.

Frank Fosborn: Since the thread has been derailed, just a reminder of what it's about.

James McGinn: Thanks Frank. Now here's a reminder of my own:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061
Surface Tension on Steroids (Section Two of Five)
There is, maybe, no greater observational correlation to thunderstorm and tornadic activity than the prevalence of moist/dry wind-shear. (This is apparent in the academic literature and also in the numerous science-based TV documentaries on severe weather.) wind-shear involves two bodies of air moving in different directions meeting along a common flat boundary. It is especially important to be cognizant of the fact that along these boundaries where large bodies of air meet there exists conditional factors that don’t exist anywhere else in the atmosphere: molecules directly impacting each other in a highly directional manner along a usually flat or somewhat flat plane and often over long distances and/or wide areas, sometimes spanning hundreds or even thousands of miles. But there was a fact that stood out most prominently: not all forms of wind-shear are associated with tornadoes and thunderstorms. It is only wind-shear in which one body of air is moist (and usually warm, lower in altitude [and, often, stagnant]) and the other is dry (and usually cold and higher in altitude [and, always, gusty]).The other two types of wind-shear, moist/moist wind-shear and dry/dry wind-shear are not associated with thunderstorms and tornadoes. This seemed a clue. Why did that distinction matter? <snip>

. . . each microdroplet had a surface and, therefore, each microdroplet had it—surface tension. I also knew that the smaller is any entity, including microdroplets, the greater is its ratio of surface to mass and, therefore, anything that might cause a microdroplet to split into smaller microdroplets would increase the ratio of surface to mass. Additionally, I knew that each microdroplet had a shape and a natural inherit tendency to become round, reducing (minimizing) its own surface area and, therefore, anything that caused a microdroplet to take a less round shape—an impact from another molecule, for example—would also increase the ratio of surface to mass. I also came to realize that surface tension was some kind of electromagnetic force. It had something to do with H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding between water molecules. Exactly what that meant I wasn’t sure at first. In fact, to be honest, it was more a matter of necessity that I latched onto these vaguely comprehended electromagnetic forces. My plasma needed something. Why not this?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The difference between a consensus of scientists and a consensus of dunces is that there is at least a chance the dunces will change their minds.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:08 pm

You still derail the thread because of not understanding Mosaic Dave's basic logic. If humid air is heaviest it should drain out of his inverted shoes. He doesn't address evaporation in that context .
James McGinn: Wrong. I never claimed that evaporation was a downward process. And if you think about it that doesn't make any sense.
:roll:
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: 481
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:24 am

fosborn_ wrote:You still derail the thread because of not understanding Mosaic Dave's basic logic. If humid air is heavier than dry air it should drain out of his inverted shoes.

Hmm. Well, ya know, now that I think about it, I think you are right! I hereby retract my claim that heavier moist air migrates upwards as a result of electrostatic forces.

However, I think you are leaving out an important detail in "Dave's basic logic." If humid air is heavier than dry air AND if convection is a valid principle of atmospheric flow then heavier moist air should drain out of Dave's inverted shoes. Likewise, if humid air is heavier than dry air AND if convection is a valid principle of atmospheric flow then clouds should fall out of the sky. This explains why there are no clouds in the sky.

I also think "Dave's basic logic" can be extended to explain other phenomena. Now we know why there is no static electricity in the atmosphere, why there is no lightning and no sprites, why there is no aurora borealis or aurora australis, why there is no solar wind, and why the universe is not electric.

I know this will he a hard pill for some to swallow, but Dave's basic logic is both logical and basic. If it were just logical or just basic there might be some wiggle room. But since it is both logical and basic we have no choice but to accept it, otherwise we would be guilty of science denialism. :(

Thank you for helping me clarify my thinking on all of this. And especially thank you for saving me from being associated with people that use fossil fuels without feeling any guilt or shame.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The only difference between a consensus of scientists and a consensus of dunces is that there is a chance the dunces will change their minds.
Hydrogen Bonds (Section Three of Five):
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117062
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:28 pm

Obfuscation is the obscuring of intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder..

You seem to have issues of staying in the context of the thread. So your only reason to post is obfuscation? M D had a simple experiment to show why his assumptions were wrong. His thinking was good for one of the reasons being, it was falsifiable. His notion of heavier moist air was falsified.
I think why a lot of mistakes are made, is taking other peoples research out of context, to support our own thinking. We can only value it, with in the scope of its investigation. IMO
If your insisting other wise, your commentary has little value and explains why it comes across as nonsensical to me.
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: 481
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:11 pm

fosborn_ wrote:Obfuscation is the obscuring of intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder..

You seem to have issues of staying in the context of the thread. So your only reason to post is obfuscation? M D had a simple experiment to show why his assumptions were wrong. His thinking was good for one of the reasons being, it was falsifiable. His notion of heavier moist air was falsified.
Obviously I disagree.

I think why a lot of mistakes are made, is taking other peoples research out of context, to support our own thinking. We can only value it, with in the scope of its investigation. IMO
If your insisting other wise, your commentary has little value and explains why it comes across as nonsensical to me.


In this forum, on sci.physics, and in my two books I've presented explanations and arguments as to why and how moisture rises in the troposphere. You've presented nothing. I don't know what you believe about moisture in the atmosphere. I'm guessing you don't have a model that is clear in your mind. But it does seem that you are not disputing the convection model.

Why don't you tell us the five things about the convection model that you think make it viable, assuming you do think its viable.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:46 am

Why don't you tell us the five things about the convection model that you think make it viable, assuming you do think its viable,


The drying of wet shoes. Inverted wet bottle doesn't dry. Up right bottle drys. Warm humid air rises. Cool dry air sinks. O's razor stuff, using the KISS method. Other factors have their part but the dominate factors are as stated above.
Show us an experment that's been done in the real world that demonstrates your idea. Your mind experment is imagination and not in the context of this thread.
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: 481
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:24 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Why don't you tell us the five things about the convection model that you think make it viable, assuming you do think it is viable,

The drying of wet shoes. Inverted wet bottle doesn't dry. Up right bottle drys. Warm humid air rises. Cool dry air sinks.

That's it?
fosborn_ wrote:Other factors have their part but the dominant factors are as stated above.

You call them factors? They look more like anecdotal observations to me.
fosborn_ wrote:Show us an experiment that's been done in the real world that demonstrates your idea.

I cannot show you an experiment that shows that something that has never been observed doesn't possibly happen. Likewise, I don't have any evidence that martians don't secretly live among us. (It has occurred to me, however, that Elon Musk may just be trying to get a ride home.)

Most people to whom for which I presented this challenge refuse to answer and/or become belligerent. This includes people who you would think should be above that kind of behavior, like nationally recognized experts in severe weather:
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpres ... science-2/
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpres ... dogenesis/
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpres ... s-chatter/
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpres ... imatology/

Keeping in mind that maintaining the public's trust is very important to their financial well being, it would be politically problematic for meteorologists to admit that their one and only model of storms is fundamentally flawed. It is just easier to pretend to understand what they don't and dismiss detractors as being misguided or "cranks." Besides, tornadoes are so mysterious it's not like there is any chance anybody will solve them anyways. And I would agree with them if I didn't make the discoveries about the surface tension of H2O and how wind shear allows the surface area of H2O to be maximized.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Zeroing of Polarity (Section Four of Five)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:15 am

cannot show you an experiment that shows that something that has never been observed doesn't possibly happen

So as far as this thread goes "you got nothing". :oops:
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: 481
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron