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 jimmcginn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:46 am

seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
without knowing any of the details--like the size of the nanodroplets--without which we were unable to solve the problem

James, i''ve just told you the minimum droplet size on the previous page.

You encountered this subject for the first time yesterday when you came upon this thread. I've been dealing with this subject for years and so I think I understand it better than you.
Mono and di- molecular H2O clusters are most easily dislodged from a surface because that action requires the least energy.

Not until the molecules recombine, upon cooling, as one of the four primary forms of Hexamers,
do the clusters achieve the rounded shape, bond strength and surface tension to become fairly stable droplets of water, at that pressure/temperature.

Look at the shapes of those few different molecular combinations, and you will see which ones would most readily 'stick out' from a surface, recombine in a cooling atmosphere or assume the Required shape of droplets.
:geek:

H2O doesn't become monomolecular (gaseous) unless and until it collectively flashes into steam when heated to it's boiling temperature/pressure (and/or when the pressure is lowered below it s boiling temperature/pressure.) To get a better understanding of the dynamics of H2O that underlie this and other strange behaviors the best I can do is point you to a paper I wrote that explicates the factors (including quantum dynamics) that underlie these behaviors:
Hydrogen Bonding As The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

I'm not saying you have to agree with what is stated in this paper. I'm just saying that unless and until you understand the thinking in this paper it will be impossible to comprehend why I am so sure your assertion about monomolecular (gaseous) H2O being the product of evaporation is impossible.

Also, I don't understand why you think your thinking in regard to hexamers is valid and/or relevant.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:21 am

jimmcginn wrote:
seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
without knowing any of the details--like the size of the nanodroplets--without which we were unable to solve the problem

James, i''ve just told you the minimum droplet size on the previous page.

You encountered this subject for the first time yesterday when you came upon this thread. I've been dealing with this subject for years and so I think I understand it better than you.

Wrong, you have a short memory.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647#p118277


Mono and di- molecular H2O clusters are most easily dislodged from a surface because that action requires the least energy.
Not until the molecules recombine, upon cooling, as one of the four primary forms of Hexamers,
do the clusters achieve the rounded shape, bond strength and surface tension to become fairly stable droplets of water, at that pressure/temperature.

Look at the shapes of those few different molecular combinations, and you will see which ones would most readily 'stick out' from a surface, recombine in a cooling atmosphere or assume the Required shape of droplets.
:geek:


H2O doesn't become monomolecular (gaseous) unless and until it collectively flashes into steam when heated to it's boiling temperature/pressure (and/or when the pressure is lowered below it s boiling temperature/pressure.) To get a better understanding of the dynamics of H2O that underlie this and other strange behaviors the best I can do is point you to a paper I wrote that explicates the factors (including quantum dynamics) that underlie these behaviors:
Hydrogen Bonding As The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

Steam can be considered a special 'explosive' case of evaporation, where the dis-bonding energy is forced through any surface, and into the body of water. To think that steam is the only gaseous state of water is just silly. Gas is a preeminate transition state.

I don't understand why you think your thinking in regard to hexamers is valid and/or relevant.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


Water hexamers are stable forms, which naturally aggregate.
Have you ever seen a snowflake
?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:33 am

seasmith wrote:Steam can be considered a special 'explosive' case of evaporation, where the dis-bonding energy is forced through any surface, and into the body of water. To think that steam is the only gaseous state of water is just silly. Gas is a preeminate transition state.
James McGinn wrote:I don't understand why you think your thinking in regard to hexamers is valid and/or relevant.

Water hexamers are stable forms, which naturally aggregate.

Have you ever seen a snowflake?

[/quote]
Have you ever noticed that snowflakes are flat?

My model can explain the physics of the flatness as being a consequence of the spinning polymers of H2O that are essential to the jet streams and vortices that deliver the low pressure energy of storms, including blizzards. However, according to my model that spinning begins with nanodroplets at the edge of the moist layer along moist/dry, wind shear boundaries being bombarded with sideglancing impacts from air molecules from the dry layer of air. I don't think there is any way to explain the origins of the flatness in the context of the relatively gentle conditions of evaporation, which would be more likely to produce round droplets.

The reason we would not expect evaporation to produce monomolecular (or even dimolecular or trimolecular) H2O (gaseous H2O) is because the charge (polarity) to weight ratio of a singular H2O molecule is extremely high. This is a consequence of the fact that H2O molecules neutralize each other's polarity (the source of their charge strength). Without H bond attachment of other H2O molecules the singular H2O molecule is at full polarity. Only clusters of H2O molecules can possibly have their collective polarity neutralized enough to be easily removed from the surface of a body of water. And so, in conjunction with issues involving the lack of leverage of singular H2O molecules, the high charge (polarity) to weight ratio of singular H2O molecule renders the supposition that evaporation can or does produce gaseous H2O to be theoretically impossible--in my opinion.

For more details on this revolutionary model follow this link:
Hydrogen Bonding As The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

See also:
Zeroing of Polarity (Section Four of Five)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:45 am

jimcginn wrote:
Have you ever noticed that snowflakes are flat?


Sheets of graphene are "flat", does that mean carbon molecules are flat ?

I don't think there is any way to explain the origins of the flatness in the context of the relatively gentle conditions of evaporation, which would be more likely to produce round droplets.


Again you are missing the natural transitioning phases between liquid, gaseous and vaporous states.
Or do you think the airy fairies are in there spooning out little round droplets of water and casting them out in space ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:56 am

seasmith wrote:Again you are missing the natural transitioning phases between liquid, gaseous and vaporous states.


Evidence? (Keep in mind the internet does not provide us access to your imagination.)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:03 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Yeah, so, IF it defies its known boiling temperature/pressure as determined by hundreds of years of unambiguous laboratory evidence THEN we can assume it will be 0.62% lighter than dry air.

You might not agree, but you should at least be familiar with kinetic theory, so that you can properly phrase your diatribes.

In kinetic theory, the temperature of gas is the average of the temperatures of the individual particles, where are themselves random (like the speeds of the balls on a pool table after a good break). But there is another factor to take into account -- if the particles are of different sizes, while all possessing (on average) the same amount of kinetic energy, the smaller particles will be traveling faster.

How much faster?

Knowing the temperature and the molar mass, we can find the particle speed using Maxwell's speed distribution equation.

velocity = √ (3 * ideal gas constant * kelvins / molar mass)

Plugging in a temperature of 300 kelvins and a molar mass of 29 for the mix of N2 and O2 in dry air, we get:

velocity = √ (3 * 8.31 * 300 / 29)
= 16.06 m/s

Knowing the velocity, we can find the kinetic energy for the dry air:

energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
= (1/2) * 29 * 16.062
= 3741.51 joules

Knowing that the kinetic energy of the water molecules has to be the same, we can use the same formula to find the velocity of the water molecules, plugging in 3741.51 joules as the energy, and using 18 for the molar mass.

energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
velocity = √ (energy / ((1/2) * mass)
= √ (3741.51 / ((1/2) * 18)
= 20.29 m/s

Knowing the temperature of the air (300 K) and the molecular speed (16.06 m/s), and now knowing the molecular speed of water vapor possessing the same kinetic energy (20.29 m/s), we can find the temperature of the water molecules by cross-multiplying.

water molecule temperature = 300 K * (20.29 / 16.06)
= 380.79 K

Note that the boiling point of water at STP is 373.15 K, so that water vapor is above the boiling point, even though it's in a mix of N2 and O2 that averages 300 K. Thus there isn't anything wrong with the phase diagrams. You just have to understand what you're looking at. Feel free to challenge any/all of this, all of the way down to the bedrock. But don't phrase your arguments in a form that misrepresents what your opponents are saying.

jimmcginn wrote:So, the fact that [the air in a cooling tower] sinks couldn't be due to the fact that it contains heavier nanodroplets and microdroplets?

Well yes, the air might be sinking, not because it is cooler, but because of water particle loading. But that would leave another thing unexplained -- why would HVAC mechanics rout this warmer air through heat exchangers at the base of the cooling tower, and use it to cool the whole building?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:02 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Yeah, so, IF it defies its known boiling temperature/pressure as determined by hundreds of years of unambiguous laboratory evidence THEN we can assume it will be 0.62% lighter than dry air.

You might not agree,

Whether or not I agree isn't the issue. You are being selectively obscure in order to conceal the weaknesses of your argument. If you had an honest argument you would have no need for these tactics.
but you should at least be familiar with kinetic theory, so that you can properly phrase your diatribes.

It's standard laws of motion. It's not that big of a deal.
In kinetic theory, the temperature of gas is the average of the temperatures of the individual particles,

True but, so what? (In liquid water there is very little variance.)
where are themselves random (like the speeds of the balls on a pool table after a good break). But there is another factor to take into account -- if the particles are of different sizes, while all possessing (on average) the same amount of kinetic energy, the smaller particles will be traveling faster.

Temperature complies with momentum, not speed. So the fact they are moving at different speeds is irrelevant.
How much faster?

Who cares, it's irrelevant. Temperature complies with momentum, not speed.
Knowing the temperature and the molar mass, we can find the particle speed using Maxwell's speed distribution equation.
velocity = √ (3 * ideal gas constant * kelvins / molar mass)
Plugging in a temperature of 300 kelvins and a molar mass of 29 for the mix of N2 and O2 in dry air, we get:
velocity = √ (3 * 8.31 * 300 / 29) = 16.06 m/s
Knowing the velocity, we can find the kinetic energy for the dry air:
energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
= (1/2) * 29 * 16.062
= 3741.51 joules

Knowing that the kinetic energy of the water molecules has to be the same, we can use the same formula to find the velocity of the water molecules, plugging in 3741.51 joules as the energy, and using 18 for the molar mass.

energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
velocity = √ (energy / ((1/2) * mass)
= √ (3741.51 / ((1/2) * 18)
= 20.29 m/s

Knowing the temperature of the air (300 K) and the molecular speed (16.06 m/s), and now knowing the molecular speed of water vapor possessing the same kinetic energy (20.29 m/s), we can find the temperature of the water molecules by cross-multiplying.

water molecule temperature = 300 K * (20.29 / 16.06)
= 380.79 K

Note that the boiling point of water at STP is 373.15 K, so that water vapor is above the boiling point, even though it's in a mix of N2 and O2 that averages 300 K. Thus there isn't anything wrong with the phase diagrams. You just have to understand what you're looking at. Feel free to challenge any/all of this, all of the way down to the bedrock. But don't phrase your arguments in a form that misrepresents what your opponents are saying.


You have made a fundamental error. There is a law of conservation of momentum. But there is no such thing as a law of conservation of speed/velocity. Temperature complies with momentum, not speed.
jimmcginn wrote:So, the fact that [the air in a cooling tower] sinks couldn't be due to the fact that it contains heavier nanodroplets and microdroplets?

Well yes, the air might be sinking, not because it is cooler, but because of water particle loading. But that would leave another thing unexplained -- why would HVAC mechanics rout this warmer air through heat exchangers at the base of the cooling tower, and use it to cool the whole building?


I can't figure out what you point is. Also, before you said it was cooler. Here now say it is warmer. Which is it?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:41 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Temperature complies with momentum, not speed.

Whose definition of temperature is that?

jimmcginn wrote:I can't figure out what you point is. Also, before you said it was cooler. Here now say it is warmer. Which is it?

I said that the air sinks because it is cooler. You suggested that the air sinks because of water particle loading. My point is consistent with the fact that cooling towers are used to cool air. That's why they call them cooling towers.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:29 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Temperature complies with momentum, not speed.

Whose definition of temperature is that?

Drop it.
jimmcginn wrote:I can't figure out what you point is. Also, before you said it was cooler. Here now say it is warmer. Which is it?

I said that the air sinks because it is cooler. You suggested that the air sinks because of water particle loading. My point is consistent with the fact that cooling towers are used to cool air. That's why they call them cooling towers.

Move on.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:57 pm

.

In kinetic theory, the temperature of gas is the average of the temperatures of the individual particles, where are themselves random (like the speeds of the balls on a pool table after a good break). But there is another factor to take into account -- if the particles are of different sizes, while all possessing (on average) the same amount of kinetic energy, the smaller particles will be traveling faster.

How much faster?

Knowing the temperature and the molar mass, we can find the particle speed using Maxwell's speed distribution equation.

velocity = √ (3 * ideal gas constant * kelvins / molar mass)

Plugging in a temperature of 300 kelvins and a molar mass of 29 for the mix of N2 and O2 in dry air, we get:

velocity = √ (3 * 8.31 * 300 / 29)
= 16.06 m/s

Knowing the velocity, we can find the kinetic energy for the dry air:

energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
= (1/2) * 29 * 16.062
= 3741.51 joules

Knowing that the kinetic energy of the water molecules has to be the same, we can use the same formula to find the velocity of the water molecules, plugging in 3741.51 joules as the energy, and using 18 for the molar mass.

energy = (1/2) * mass * velocity2
velocity = √ (energy / ((1/2) * mass)
= √ (3741.51 / ((1/2) * 18)
= 20.29 m/s

Knowing the temperature of the air (300 K) and the molecular speed (16.06 m/s), and now knowing the molecular speed of water vapor possessing the same kinetic energy (20.29 m/s), we can find the temperature of the water molecules by cross-multiplying.

water molecule temperature = 300 K * (20.29 / 16.06)
= 380.79 K

Note that the boiling point of water at STP is 373.15 K, so that water vapor is above the boiling point, even though it's in a mix of N2 and O2 that averages 300 K. Thus there isn't anything wrong with the phase diagrams. You just have to understand what you're looking at. Feel free to challenge any/all of this, all of the way down to the bedrock. But don't phrase your arguments in a form that misrepresents what your opponents are saying.


Wow, thanks for that explanation, even I could understand it. It's so sweet to have competent people who are contributing to this thread who understand weather theory. I blunder through it all but it's a blast to gan understanding of the accepted science.
Thanks to all you level headed fellows who are willing to take the abuse, and incivility, when exposing the weekness in the op s ideas..
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:41 am

Can't we all just get along?
Rodney King
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:03 am

fosborn_ wrote:Wow, thanks for that explanation, even I could understand it. It's so sweet to have competent people who are contributing to this thread who understand weather theory. I blunder through it all but it's a blast to gan understanding of the accepted science.
Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is. All bow before the gods of accepted science, the purveyors of theories that are never overturned, the gatekeepers of omnipotent understanding of things that need no evidence...

fosborn_ wrote:Thanks to all you level headed fellows who are willing to take the abuse, and incivility, when exposing the weekness in the op s ideas..
Fortunately for the OP's idea's, according to you he can never be proven wrong. However, maybe one of the Level Headed Fellows would care to interpret the ancient ones scripture and explain how fog stays suspended in the absence of any updraft? It should be easy when you have the weight of infallible accepted science behind you.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:56 am

Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.

Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons. Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:31 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:. . . a theorist has to pick his battles carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension, he's probably going to lose that one. ;)


Have you ever wondered why liquid H2O is so fluid? If you look into the literature you will read that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. Reading further you will find an explanation along the lines that the H2O molecule possesses lopsided electronegativity and this causes the oxygen side of the molecule to possess a slight negative charge. And it causes the dual positive ends, where the hydrogen atoms are covalently attached, to possess a slight positive charge. Reading even further you will find that this lopsidedness of charge—it’s polarity—explains why H2O molecules clump together and why (for one example of numerous properties of H2O) it possesses such a high boiling temperature. But it occurred to me that if it is this polarity that causes H2O molecules to possess this mutual attraction why is it so fluid. Strangely, H2O remains very fluid throughout the whole temperature range of its liquid phase. When I went looking for an explanation the only thing I could find indicated that the high fluidity of liquid H2O is one of many anomalies of H2O. An anomaly is an observe behavior that is inconsistent with or not predicted by theory. Most chemicals have have a handful of anomalies. Usually a chemicals anomalies occur only under extreme conditions. H2O is anomalous with respect to having numerous anomalies, upwards of seventy, and many of these happen right before our eyes.

Another of H2O’s anomalies is surface tension. If you look closely at a water droplet you might notice a kind of slumpiness to it. When hanging this slumpiness gives it a kind of egg or pear shape. Resting on a surface this slumpiness results in kind of a pancaked aspect to it. If we were to try to create something that modeled this behavior we might stuff a balloon with sand. And if we were to then attempt to describe the physics associated with the sand filled balloon and its observed slumpiness we might draw attention to the fact that there are no tensional forces between the grains of sand. All of the tensional forces are associated with the stretched rubber of the balloon that envelopes the sand. If we were to then apply this same reasoning to flesh out an analogue between a sand filled balloon and the water droplet we might find ourselves saying that there are no tensional forces between water molecules below the surface of the droplet. All of the tensional forces are associated with the interconnected matrix of H2O molecules along the surface of the water droplet. And therein we would find ourselves confronting a conceptual quandary. With the sand filled balloon the properties of the balloon and the properties of the sand are different. But with the water droplet the molecules below the surface and the water molecules along the surface are the same molecules and therefore could only have the same properties. Right?

Actually, that is not right. There are two ways in which the H2O molecules along the surface are distinctive from those below the surface, but it is the way that these two ways are themselves related that really gives us insight into the nature of H2O polarity. Firstly, H2O molecules along the surface are less interconnected than those below the surface. This is a consequence of the two dimensional geometry of a surface making it harder for hydrogen bonds to be completed. Specifically, H2O molecules along the surface are more likely to share one and only one hydrogen bond with a neighboring H2O molecule. In contrast, those below the surface are more likely to share two hydrogen bonds with adjacent H2O molecules. This is a consequence of the three dimensional geometry below the surface making it easier for H bonds to be completed. (If we were to use more technical terminology we would say that those along the surface with only one H bond are tetrahedrally asymmetric [lopsided] while those below the surface that possess two H bonds are tetrahedrally symmetric.)

This brings us to something that appears to be a dichotomy. Along the surface hydrogen bonding is less comprehensive yet it is these bonds that provide the tensional forces that maintain the integrity of the droplet. Below the surface there are more hydrogen bonds yet there is a general absence of tensional forces existing between these molecules. This seems to not make sense. Our intuition tells us that if there are more bonds below the surface and less bonds along the surface that those along the surface should result in structural weakness and those below the surface should be stronger. But exactly the opposite is the case, the surface has fewer H bonds but these bonds are stronger, providing the surface structural rigidity. Below the surface there are more H bonds but these bonds are weaker, so weak in fact that there is almost zero structural rigidity below the surface.

The solution, I contend, starts with understanding that those along the surface have greater polarity than do those below the surface and polarity is what determines the strength of a hydrogen bond. And since those along the surface have greater polarity the H bonds they share with neighboring H2O molecules are strong H bonds. Below the surface the H bonds that are shared between the different H2O molecules are weak bonds because below the surface the H2O molecules have very little polarity.

Why is it, you may wonder, that water molecules that share only one H bond with an adjacent water molecule have polarity while those that have two have very little polarity? The answer, I contend, is that H bonds between water molecules actually serve two functions. Firstly, and most obviously, they combine or connect two water molecules. Secondly, they neutralize each others polarity. One H bond neutralizes one half of their polarity and two H bonds neutralize all of their polarity. And since polarity dictates the strength of bonds this is why singular bonds along the surface are strong bonds. Below the surface there is very little polarity (for reasons I won’t attempt to explain polarity never completely drops to zero) there is little tensional strength. And that is because the prevalence of H bonds below the surface has neutralize most of the polarity.

So now we know why liquid H2O is so fluid despite its polarity. It really isn’t a polar molecule when it is in the liquid state because the prevalence of H bonds has neutralized its polarity.

From this we also get a sense of significant structural capabilities that emerge when the surface area of H2O is maximized, as occurs on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061
and
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885#p122282

Also, if you are interested in a quantum mechanical perspective on H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding go here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117063

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:59 pm

.Aardwolf wrote.. Fellows would care to interpret <snip> and explain how fog stays suspended in the absence of any updraft?It should be easy.. <snip>.


You shouldn't be skipping Charles explanation of it. gaseous water vapor gives up heat in condensing and creates its own lift. Do you know of a better idea that explains it?
Can you refute Mosaic Dave's experiment, Mcginn couldn't, except implying he is a liar. Can you refute it ? If you insist its mercury, then explain it.
It means water obeys the gas laws. How do you take it? If evaporation works, then everything in Charles explanation of fog works too. He did lots of maths, which do you dispute?
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests