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

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

Unread postby Maol » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:18 pm

Guess whose face this will put a smile upon :D

Take care to note this particular (link) discussion is about "the surface of minuscule water drops surrounded by a hydrophobic substance such as oil" and "how they interact with their hydrophobic environment."

Water is surprisingly ordered on the nanoscale
May 24, 2017, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Researchers from AMOLF and Swiss EPFL have shown that the surface of minuscule water drops surrounded by a hydrophobic substance such as oil is surprisingly ordered. At room temperature, the surface water molecules of these droplets have much stronger interactions than at a normal water surface. This may shed new light on a variety of atmospheric, biological and even geological processes.

Nanometric-sized water drops are everywhere—in the air as droplets or aerosols, in industrially produced medications, and within rocks and oil fields. To understand the behavior of these drops, it is necessary to know how they interact with their hydrophobic environment. This interaction takes places at the curved droplet interface, a sub-nanometric region that surrounds the small pocket of water. Researchers from EPFL, in collaboration with the institute AMOLF in the Netherlands have discovered that molecules on the surface of the drops were much more ordered than expected. Their surprising results have been published in Nature Communications. They pave the way to a better understanding of atmospheric, biological and geological processes.

......... much more to read ......

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-surprisin ... e.html#jCp
Last edited by Maol on Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maol
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Maol » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:23 pm

Theoretical model reveals how droplets grow around tiny particles on a surface
January 11, 2017, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-theoretic ... s.html#jCp

....... which leads to ......

Researchers find new mechanism to explain the birth of cloud droplets
March 24, 2016, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-mechanism ... s.html#jCp

Each link leads to another on the subject. Chase them to your heart's content.
Maol
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:23 pm

The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!

This conjecture about H2O being the basis for structural strength in tornadic vortices—which involved a potentially unique and yet unexplained form of agitation—was 100% dependent upon the validity of my own—unique and original—explanatory model of H2O surface tension. But at first I didn’t know that my understanding was unique or original.

It started after I had seen an explanation of H2O surface tension on a TV documentary. Up until I saw that documentary I was unaware how distinctively strong were the tensional forces along the surface of liquid water in comparison to the almost complete lack of tensional forces below the surface of liquid water.

Knowing that the forces that hold water molecules together are hydrogen bonds, I developed my own explanation: hydrogen bonds kind of have the opposite effect that our intuition tells us they should have. Specifically, broken bonds actually are associated with stronger hydrogen bonds, not weaker. You might think this last sentence is a mistatement. It isn’t. Allow me to explain.

I conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated--neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.

And so, in short, I envisioned an inverse relationship between the number of bonds each H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules and magnitude of the polarity. And this last point was especially significant with respect to the fact that the magnitude of the polarity is what determined the strength of the bonds, which is confusing. More explicitly, in order to properly conceptualize the significance of this inverse relationship it is important to keep in mind that H2O molecules can share a hydrogen bond with up to four other H2O molecules. So, this reduction in polarity was fractional. Accordingly, if we arbitrarily designate the force of the polarity of a single H2O molecule as four, then each additional H bond would drop it down by one, producing a 25% reduction in polarity per completed H bond. And since polarity is what determined the strength of the bonds, the more bonds that an H2O molecule shares with up to four other H2O molecules the weaker would be these bonds.

This model seemed to solve the explanatory challenges of surface tension:

<insert graphic>
Title: Cross section of water droplet; below surface (arrow points below surface)
Caption: Below the surface where the comprehensive of hydrogen bonding is unrestricted (three dimensions) we find low polarity. There are a lot of bonds but they are all very weak, explaining the low viscosity (high fluidity) of the water below the surface of a droplet.

Along the surface where the comprehensiveness of H bonding is restricted to two dimensions we find
higher polarity, because there are fewer hydrogen bonds (more broken hydrogen bonds) and, therefore, less of the polarity is neutralized (more of the H2O molecules inherit polarity is active). This explains surface tension. In short, the increased tensional forces that exist along the surface of liquid water are not inspite of the fact that the H2O molecules there are less comprehensively bonded but because of it.

<insert graphic>
Title: Cross section of water droplet; surface (arrow points at surface)
Caption: Along the surface where the comprehensive of hydrogen bonding is restricted to two dimensions we find higher polarity. There are a fewer bonds but they are stronger, explaining the higher viscosity (lower fluidity--solidity) of the water along the surface of a droplet.

But most importantly as it applies to the larger question of the composition of vortices in the atmosphere, this understanding does, I contend, sets the stage for explaining how adding a third dimension to surface tension can multiply these unnoticeably small tensional forces to produce a dramatically noticeable form of surface tension. Unfortunately this explanation does not provide us any idea of the magnitude of the forces that are possible when the two dimensions of surface tension are expressed in three dimensions. With this issue in mind lets consider non-Newtonian fluids.

The most popular nonNewtonian fluid is a combination of H2O and corn starch.
<insert link to YouTube video>
You’ll notice that when little or not force is applied the mixture stays fluid. According to the understanding of surface tension that I was developing, this was because a slow or weak force is not enough to break or interrupt the relatively weak bonds that exist in the liquid water in the mixture. Polarity remains deactivated and there is no change in its viscosity—it remains highly fluid.

However, when a sudden force is applied grains of corn starch are forced up in-between some of the H bonds that exist between H2O molecules and breaks these bonds, reactivating polarity, producing more hard bonds in the immediate vicinity which initiates a cascade of more starch molecules being forced resulting in more breaking of H bonds. This results in the sudden emergence of structural hardness within the fluid mixture. And, as you can see, it becomes very hard indeed. This is surface tension expressed in three dimensions.

The most important concept that I want to emphasize here is that this—three dimensional activation of polarity--is what takes place when the very weak two dimensional form of surface tension is expressed in three dimensions. And so, as I envisioned it, the sheath of a vortice also contained this same phenomena, but it was different from nonNewtonian corn starch mixture in that there was no added ingredient like the corn starch to cause the breaking the H bonds. Instead there is a completely different phenomena involved with the breaking of bonds—wind shear.

Anybody that is familiar with tornadogenesis will be familiar with moist/dry wind shear. This involves two bodies of air, one moist and one dry, interacting with each other along a common boundary, moving in different or even opposite directions from one another. As I envisioned it, the result of this interaction is a unique form of agitation that produces an equally unique end product, a plasma—specifically, a plasma based on three dimensional H2O surface tension.

I suppose not everybody is familiar with a plasma, so let me explain that first. By appearance a plasma seems similar to a gas in that it is comprised of a conglomerate of fast moving particles interacting with each other. But a plasma is very different from a gas. A gas consists of molecules that are, essentially, trying to get away from each other. So, if you were to take away air pressure the molecules in a gas would all go off in different directions. In contrast, the molecules that are part of a plasma would continue to remain intact. In fact, without a continuous source of energy to push the particles apart the plasma would collapse in on itself and reform into a solid or a liquid.

Accordingly, all plasmas require a source of energy to push the respective particles apart. In most plasmas the energy is some kind of externally provided electromagnetic energy and the force that keeps them together involves the electromagnetic forces associated with ionic bonding.

This new H2O based plasma that I was envisioning for vortices is unique in that the externally provided energy is not electromagnetic but kinetic—wind shear. And the internal electromagnetic forces that keep them together is also unique in that it is not associated with ionic bonding but hydrogen bonding.

Accordingly, wind shear provides the source of the external energy that maintains energetic state—the agitation—of the plasma. More precisely, this plasma layer—the sheath of the vortice—encircled the flow and the interaction of the flow with the inner wall of the plasma sheath was the source of continuing wind shear that maintained the energetic state of the plasma.

With the inclusion of this theoretical H2O based plasma—what I was beginning to refer to as vortice plasma—the pieces of the puzzle of my larger model of atmospheric flow—a conglomeration of causes and effects—was beginning to come together in my mind. For example, the inclusion of moist/dry wind shear seemed to explain why the jet streams—being vortices—tend to be associated with the tropopause, which harbors an abundance of moist/dry wind shear. The fact that the main component of these vortices involved an H2O based plasma explained why these vortices sometimes grew down, into bodies of moist air—moist air being the raw material for vortice growth. This, it seemed, explained the storms in the lower altitudes. On a grander scale, all of this suggested the tropopause as the bulkhead that housed the greater tributary system of vortices from the equator to the poles—the hydrophobic properties of H2O surface tension providing a relatively friction free surface to facilitate pressure driven flow, with differential air pressure being the engine of general circulation (not convection).

But all of the above depended on the scientific validity of my vortice plasma, which itself depended on the scientific validity of my supposition that polarity—the source of the strength of hydrogen bonds—is deactivated by hydrogen bonds and, therefore, reactivated when bonds are broken. And so, since it was central to the perceived validity of my larger model and since I, essentially, had no recognized credibility in this particular discipline, a subdiscipline of physical chemistry, I began doing research to find more of a formal description of this mechanism. And I couldn’t find it.

The fact that I could not find this mechanism in the literature on H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding was both horrifying and exciting: either I had made a terrible mistake or a beautiful discovery.

After some trials and tribulations contacting experts in the field, writing a paper and attempting to carry on conversations with them about my purported discovery, confronting general ignorance of fundamental concepts like Coulombs law, misunderstanding of quantum mechanical factors underlying the electron cloud, and general grumpiness and insularity directed toward anybody that would bring skeptical attention to their precious but, apparently, fragile model of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding—at times feeling that they were maliciously toying with me—I eventually came to the realization that these experts were nothing but a bunch of consensus based dunces that didn’t have anything but a peripheral understanding of the model they describe as being, ‘well understood’. I also came to the realization that I had not made a terrible error but had, in fact, made a beautiful discovery.

They had made the terrible error. This happened some eighty years ago or so. And the net effect of everything that has happened in the paradigm subsequent to this initial flub has, effectively, further obfuscated the error.

Lets examine their error:

According to the prevailing paradigm, molecular polarity can be explained by two things: 1) an imbalance of electronegativity between a molecule’s atoms; and, 2) idiosyncratic or lopsided arrangement of said electronegativity imbalances.

According to this definition the H2O molecule is—and can only be—a polar molecule. There is no room in this definition for the possibility that the polarity of H2O can, under certain circumstances, be turned off or neutralized, as is being conjectured here. This is a problem! Our definition has boxed us in! How can we fix this definition so that it represents the true essence of H2O polarity?

Well, I think we can fix our definition by recognizing that electronegativity differences between covalently attached atoms is, ultimately, tangential to whether or not a molecule can be labeled a polar molecule. More precisely, the true, fundamental essence of this aspect of H2O polarity has to do with whether or not electron clouds in a molecule’s atoms are stretched. Only if (and only to the degree that) the electron clouds are stretched is there any kind of separation between the positive charges of the nucleus and negative charges of its associated electron cloud. And it is this—the separation of positive and negative charges—that actually allows H2O molecules to be a dipole that is capable of producing the forces associated with polarity.

Now here’s the problem. It appears—according to everything that has been stated and assumed up to this point—that hydrogen bonds cause the re-centering of the electron clouds in the atoms (or some of the atoms). And this appears to be the case for both of the 2 H2O molecules that are participating in a hydrogen bond, but in two different ways. The donor molecule (the one “donating” a hydrogen atom to the hydrogen bond) will have the electron cloud on its donating hydrogen atom re-centered—no stretch. And this all takes place simply as a consequence of the force that caused the stretching being directly counteracted.

<insert graphic>
Title: Polarity neutralizing effect of an H bond on the associated hydrogen atom.
Caption: The force that caused the stretching of the hydrogen atoms electron cloud is directly counteracted by a hydrogen bond.

At one and the same time, the other H2O molecule that is participating in this same hydrogen bond—the one that is nominally the “acceptor” of the hydrogen from the adjoining molecule, will have the stretch in the electron cloud of its acceptor atom, its oxygen atom, alleviated. This is consequence of the restoration of tetrahedral symmetry. In other words, in addition to neutralizing the stretching of electron cloud of the donator molecules hydrogen atom, this same hydrogen bond will alleviate (actually, cut in half) the tetrahedral assymetry that caused the stretching of the electron cloud on the acceptor molecule’s oxygen atom.

<insert graphic>
Title: Polarity neutralizing effect of an H bond on the associated oxygen atom.
Caption: The tetrahedral asymmetry that caused the stretching of the oxygen atom’s electron cloud is alleviated by a hydrogen bond.

And so, regardless of whether we are talking about hydrogen atoms or oxygen atoms, the net effect of hydrogen bonding is to counteract and alleviate the forces that caused the stretching of electron clouds. And since stretching of electron clouds is what causes polarity, this net effect includes the neutralization of a portion of the force—the H2O molecule’s polarity—that created the bond. (To be more precise, each hydrogen bond reduces 25% of each others maximum polarity. [*])
([*] This assumes EMF equivalence between the H2O molecules oxygen atom and its hydrogen atoms that may not be fully valid.)

According to this new model, most of the H2O that most normal people encounter on a day to day basis is highly bonded and, consequently, not very polar. Breaking of bonds activates polarity. Or, more concisely, breaking of hydrogen bonds removes forces that counteract and alleviate the H2O molecule’s inherit stretching of its own electron clouds.

Our revised definition is that a molecule is a polar molecule if 1) the electron clouds of its atoms are off-center relative to the atom’s proton/neutron cluster (a stretched electron cloud) and, 2) if atoms associated with these stretched electron clouds are themselves oriented asymmetrically (ie. bent angle of H2O molecule).

According to this new definition, a methane molecule would, still, not be considered a polar molecule because its covalently attached hydrogen bonds are oriented symmetrically (a perfect tetrahedron). And, so, even though the electron clouds on the methane molecule are somewhat stretched (slightly pulled in toward the carbon atom) it is not a polar molecule because the orientation of these four arms comprises a perfecty symmetrical tetrahedron.

This definition also allows for singular or not-fully-bonded H2O molecules (singular molecules of gaseous H2O) to be considered polar molecules since they, firstly, have three atoms (2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen) possessing negatively charged electron clouds that are stretched off-center from their respective proton/neutron clusters and, secondly, these covalently attached hydrogen atoms are oriented asymmetrically (lopsided). So, a singular H2O molecule is a polar molecule because it has both stretched electron clouds in its atoms (all three, 2H and 1O) and these atoms are asymmetrically oriented. But we should remember that this form of H2O—genuine gaseous H2O[*] is not part of our common experience. ([*] Note, moist air in earth’s atmosphere does not contain gaseous H2O. It contains nanodroplets of liquid H2O.)

According to this new definition, the form of H2O with which we are most familiar, highly bonded liquid and solid H2O, is considered nonpolar. Because, even though their covalently attached atoms are arranged asymmetrically, meeting the second of the two criteria, their negatively charged electron clouds are centered (not stretched) relative to their respective proton/neutron clusters—essentially their polarity has been turned off, neutralized by hydrogen bonding (as described above).

So, what was the mistake? What was the wrong turn that the current paradigm took some eighty years ago? Well, they jumped to the conclusion that electronegativity differences are central when, in actuality, they are peripheral. In other words, they were mistaken not to refer directly to the underlying cause of H2O polarity—whether or not the electron clouds on its atoms are stretched off-center from their associated nucleus. And so, essentially, they were defeated by their own dogmatic adherence to a notion that is tangential to polarity. The possibility that the underlying cause of H2O polarity would be—or possibly could be—counteracted with hydrogen bonding was not even on their radar screen.

Now that we have an accurate definition and explicit foundations of the ground rules of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding we can, hereafter, begin resolving the anomalies of H2O.

In the next post we will address the implications of Coulombs law.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests