Electric Clouds

[webolife]

Aardwolf,
I didn't say "larger [and therefore more] dense", I was simply referring to the larger water droplets that are dense, as compared to the water vapor molecules which are less dense than air. All that is needed is proper motion of the particles to keep them suspended. A jet liner illustrates this well enough, and it is obviously many times more dense than a water droplet. There is a lot of stuff moving around in the atmosphere [call it Brownian if you wish] to keep small particles such as water droplets suspended for a long time. The frozen lake you referred to simply illustrates what both Aveo and I have been explaining --- it's all about dew point. The cold lake surface lowers the dew point of the air above it, and water vapor suspended there condenses. The water vapor was less dense than its air matrix so was "floating" above the ice, but the cooling air caused it to condense into fog. The droplets in fog are very tiny compared to the droplets in many clouds, and as they get bumped around a lot by the fast moving air molecules around them, they stay suspended. So in this sense I can see why you are disclaiming the convection process for this. Brownian motion is all that is needed for the smaller fog particles. Now, as I originally pointed out, at the micro-level we are talking about, electrical repulsion forces are certainly at work, but this is not the same as antigravity, unless you are referring to the miniscule "gravity" between micro-particles, which I don't think you are. The [ambient] charge gradient at atmospheric levels is not insignificant, but is relatively small compared to what you are trying to attribute to cloud flotation. (I'm not referring to charge separation in cumulonimbus clouds which is obviously quite large.) But in addition to what Aveo and I have been saying, clouds form also in frontal systems between air masses, and suspension in many of these frontal regions is due directly to the density difference between the two air masses, thus stratus type clouds happen as less dense, humid, warmer air slides up over more dense, drier, colder air... as the moisture reaches the higher altitude, lower atmospheric pressure level, it cools adiabatically and condenses just as we have been saying, and you see the cloud. The larger droplets are falling just as you would suspect, while the smaller droplets stay suspended, just as we are saying. In the mixing frontal zone itself, a lot of chaos can [and does] happen, so you get a whole variety of different weather effects. But realize also there is an ambient pressure gradient in the atmosphere as well, greater pressure being lower in altitude and less pressure high up. Moisture condensing at high altitudes because of the low pressure is now sitting atop a region of greater pressure, which tends to keep it pushed up. All of these interacting processes make weather prediction a complex subject to say the least, but behind it all is simple thermodynamics. Now, most folks around here are comfortable with the concept that gravity may be a residual or cumulative electrical phenomenon... if so, then the "electrical" process of cloud suspension is the same as the gravity-based convection process, it's not antigravity.

[GaryN]

Electricity Collected from the Air Could Become the Newest Alternative Energy Source

Scientists once believed that water droplets in the atmosphere were electrically neutral, and remained so even after coming into contact with the electrical charges on dust particles and droplets of other liquids. But new evidence suggested that water in the atmosphere really does pick up an electrical charge.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 185121.htm

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,
I didn't say "larger [and therefore more] dense", I was simply referring to the larger water droplets that are dense, as compared to the water vapor molecules which are less dense than air. All that is needed is proper motion of the particles to keep them suspended. A jet liner illustrates this well enough, and it is obviously many times more dense than a water droplet. There is a lot of stuff moving around in the atmosphere [call it Brownian if you wish] to keep small particles such as water droplets suspended for a long time. The frozen lake you referred to simply illustrates what both Aveo and I have been explaining --- it's all about dew point. The cold lake surface lowers the dew point of the air above it, and water vapor suspended there condenses. The water vapor was less dense than its air matrix so was "floating" above the ice, but the cooling air caused it to condense into fog. The droplets in fog are very tiny compared to the droplets in many clouds, and as they get bumped around a lot by the fast moving air molecules around them, they stay suspended. So in this sense I can see why you are disclaiming the convection process for this. Brownian motion is all that is needed for the smaller fog particles. Now, as I originally pointed out, at the micro-level we are talking about, electrical repulsion forces are certainly at work, but this is not the same as antigravity, unless you are referring to the miniscule "gravity" between micro-particles, which I don't think you are. The [ambient] charge gradient at atmospheric levels is not insignificant, but is relatively small compared to what you are trying to attribute to cloud flotation. (I'm not referring to charge separation in cumulonimbus clouds which is obviously quite large.) But in addition to what Aveo and I have been saying, clouds form also in frontal systems between air masses, and suspension in many of these frontal regions is due directly to the density difference between the two air masses, thus stratus type clouds happen as less dense, humid, warmer air slides up over more dense, drier, colder air... as the moisture reaches the higher altitude, lower atmospheric pressure level, it cools adiabatically and condenses just as we have been saying, and you see the cloud. The larger droplets are falling just as you would suspect, while the smaller droplets stay suspended, just as we are saying. In the mixing frontal zone itself, a lot of chaos can [and does] happen, so you get a whole variety of different weather effects. But realize also there is an ambient pressure gradient in the atmosphere as well, greater pressure being lower in altitude and less pressure high up. Moisture condensing at high altitudes because of the low pressure is now sitting atop a region of greater pressure, which tends to keep it pushed up. All of these interacting processes make weather prediction a complex subject to say the least, but behind it all is simple thermodynamics. Now, most folks around here are comfortable with the concept that gravity may be a residual or cumulative electrical phenomenon... if so, then the "electrical" process of cloud suspension is the same as the gravity-based convection process, it's not antigravity.

I dont think I mentioned antigravity at all. I merely pointed out that the mainstream explanations do not hold up for fog. Talking about less dense vapour when discussing fog is misleading because its not in gaseous form.

As for the convection issue, I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

[Aardwolf]

Also, if I were to take a glass of water into fog and wait for the temperature to equalise then throw the contents into the air, shouldn't I expect that water to remain in the air? In fact I likely would have propelled it more forcibly than the air acting on the fog molecules themselves, so it should accelerate upward with that extra help. Will that happen or will the contents return to the surface of the earth?

[Aveo9]

Also, if I were to take a glass of water into fog and wait for the temperature to equalise then throw the contents into the air, shouldn't I expect that water to remain in the air? In fact I likely would have propelled it more forcibly than the air acting on the fog molecules themselves, so it should accelerate upward with that extra help. Will that happen or will the contents return to the surface of the earth?

Ahh but the droplets of water coming from the glass are much, much larger than the droplets of water suspended in the fog.

Given enough time and lack of wind, the water droplets in fog probably will all fall to the ground. Every mixture of substances of different densities will eventually sort itself into layers if it's left alone, but it's not a quick process.

And it's not like water droplets are the only "foreign" objects suspended in air. Dust particles, smoke particles, organic molecules (the ones that produce smells when they hit your nose), even bacteria, dead skin cells and plant seeds are all much, much denser and bulkier than air, yet they can stay suspended for long periods of time due to Brownian motion.

Maybe Brownian motion is augmented by ionisation of particles, or by plasma movements in the local atmosphere - I don't know. If someone can demonstrate a link between them I'd be very interested. But in the meantime I strongly caution against an attitude of "water molecules don't fall straight to earth - oh it must be electrical!" without first discussing the dynamics of mixtures and solutes.

Electricity Collected from the Air Could Become the Newest Alternative Energy Source

Scientists once believed that water droplets in the atmosphere were electrically neutral, and remained so even after coming into contact with the electrical charges on dust particles and droplets of other liquids. But new evidence suggested that water in the atmosphere really does pick up an electrical charge.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 185121.htm

Woah nice find.

[Aardwolf]

We're just going around in cirlcles. Approaching the issue from another angle have a look at this NASA paper on using electrically charged particles to disperse fog at airports. Interestingly they are unclear as to the reason this works, but favour the charged droplets following electric field lines to the ground. If that's what's happening I see no reason why the reverse isn't possible and I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 011422.pdf

[webolife]

Thanks, Aveo.

Aardwolf:
I don't think this needs to be a circular discussion. But you are laboring under some misconceptions.

I'll take your "against the pull of gravity" as "antigravity" to obviate my use of the word.

While on a road trip this summer, I had numerous opportunities to observe those crop sprinklers you see all the time in agricultural areas. The bigger water droplets of course obeyed the farmer, and gravity, by watering his crops. But those pesky little droplets sailed away, some misty bits managed to collect on the windshield of my car [hundreds of meters away], but many rose up, evaporating into the air. From a distance it looked like [and was] a cloud. You are wrong about the energy required to toss the glass's contents in the air. It is nowhere near the kinetic energy and relative velocities of the water vapor and air molecules wrt their size. The fog near the ground is in a dynamic near equilibrium; if you continue to discount the motion of the rising water vapor, you will continue to disbelieve its bouyant effect on the tiny fog droplets. Watch any fast motion video of fog, and you will see the exact same dynamics of motion you see in clouds. I mentioned transpiration fog earlier. The trees of the forest needed not fling their excess water into the air, it simply rose up as it evaporated from their leaves into the cold air where it condensed long enough for us to see it before re-evaporating. If you were in the forest at the time, you felt some of it fall as mist onto your face or clothing. Unless your mind was in a fog. No disrespect, but all puns and metaphors, intended. As I said before, I promote, and do not deny, the electrical nature of phase change, molecular interactions, and even more fundamentally of heat itself.

With regard to your fog dispersal technique, this is not as mysterious as you make it sound. In order for those droplets in clouds [which are generally negatively charged] to fall as precip, they must coalesce around suspended dust particles, ie condensation nuclei, which as I discussed in the Snowflakes thread long ago, are generally positively charged. That the airport techs are able to precipitate or disperse fog using electrical particles is simply an acknowledgement of nature.

Here around Seattle there is a well known adage that if you wash your car, it will rain the next day...

[StevenO]

The atmosphere is carried by the charge photon field of the earth. It is the foundation of all local electricity. Small particles have a relatively higher contribution of their charge field than their gravity field. No difference between dust or water, its the size and density that matters in determining how "charged" a particle is.

[webolife]

Is that an argument against, or confirmation of, my description of dust and small water droplet charges?
I've read quite a bit now of Miles' stuff, and now some of Dan Fitzpatrick's very good stuff which agrees in many ways with Miles. Just wondering how your comment applies to atmospheric nuclei of condensation?

[seasmith]

by StevenO » Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:28 pm

The atmosphere is carried ? by the charge photon field of the earth. It is the foundation of all local electricity. Small particles have a relatively higher contribution of their charge field than their gravity field. No difference between dust or water, its the size and density that matters in determining how "charged" a particle is.

webolife » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:30 pm

Is that an argument against, or confirmation of, my description of dust and small water droplet charges?
I've read quite a bit now of Miles' stuff, and now some of Dan Fitzpatrick's very good stuff which agrees in many ways with Miles. Just wondering how your comment applies to atmospheric nuclei of condensation?
Re: Recovered: Clouds and Gravity

[/code]



" The partial pressure of a gas is a [molecular] measure of thermodynamic activity of the gas's molecules,"
[Henry's Law is still valid ]
and as Aardwolf i think correlated above, is with electricity.


s

[Aardwolf]

The fog near the ground is in a dynamic near equilibrium; if you continue to discount the motion of the rising water vapor, you will continue to disbelieve its bouyant effect on the tiny fog droplets.

I guess I struggle to underdstand why liquid water is bouyant in gaseous water and/or air. At a 1000 times its density if you could explain that cleary it would help.

That the airport techs are able to precipitate or disperse fog using electrical particles is simply an acknowledgement of nature.

So you accept particles can be manipulated artificially by electrical processess to cause them to fall towards earth, yet can't accept it may be a possible nature could raise them up using its own electrical processess.

[seasmith]

Sorry, it's Dalton's Law:

Ideally the ratio of partial pressures is the same as the ratio of molecules. That is, the mole fraction of an individual gas component in an ideal gas mixture can be expressed in terms of the component's partial pressure or the moles of the component:

and the partial pressure of an individual gas component in an ideal gas can be obtained using this expression:



where:
xi = mole fraction of any individual gas component in a gas mixture
Pi = partial pressure of any individual gas component in a gas mixture
ni = moles of any individual gas component in a gas mixture
n = total moles of the gas mixture
P = total pressure of the gas mixture
The mole fraction of a gas component in a gas mixture is equal to the volumetric fraction of that component in a gas mixture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressure

[Total Science]

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.

"Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1946

[webolife]

OMG, aren't you guys reading anything Aveo and I are saying? Clouds do not defy gravity in any way shape or form!
If Velikovsky said they do, he was just plain wrong here! Neither of us have denied that there is electricity in the atmosphere, just that it is not counteracting gravity in some way to keep clouds afloat. That idea borders on the ridiculous! Just what part of our explanations aren't you understanding?

[Aveo9]

I guess I struggle to underdstand why liquid water is bouyant in gaseous water and/or air. At a 1000 times its density if you could explain that cleary it would help.

I'll draw your attention back to what's already been said:

Moisture is rising through the air until it reaches the height where it condenses into water droplets. These droplets continue upwards due to their momentum, until they reach the apex of their climb and come tumbling back down the outside of the updraft (pretty much like a ball thrown straight up). If the water droplets aren't of a sufficient mass, then they'll re-evaporate as soon as they drop below the height of the cloud-base into warmer air. If they are of a sufficient mass then they won't fully evaporate, but will continue falling as rain.

A small cumulus cloud is even more interesting to watch. In this video here (you need quicktime): http://tktimelapse.com/code/C-0204.html
... the clouds seem to be barrel-rolling as they drift in the wind. Again, this would be due to moisture condensing and then falling (and then re-evaporating). The idea that clouds are "suspended" in the air like a cork in water just doesn't seem to match observation.

Watch any fast motion video of fog, and you will see the exact same dynamics of motion you see in clouds.

As I said it's not a simple buoyancy like a cork on water is. It's a dynamic equilibrium of rising and falling water droplets.

Here are two good time-lapse videos that clearly show the "rolling" (rising/falling) dynamics of fog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_oXAmIkzx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKS7Tph5klo