Electric Clouds

[seasmith]

gents,

I think we are all basically stating the same:
It is an Interplay and Rebalancing of gravitic and electric
~ force fields-of-motion.

That is the point of Dalton's Law- it is relative molecular mass that is the primary driver.

The electric field of mass density, and the gravitic field of mass volume, are seamless inversions of effect.

In fact, i would posit that the two fields of motion complete a circuit,
or cycle continuously in our dielectric atmosphere.

~s~

[webolife]

Seasmith,
Thanks for your conciliatory tone. But I don't think Dalton's law describes what Aardwolf and others are misconceiving as a macroscale atmospheric electrical drive against downward gravity resulting in clouds floating. Aveo's Youtube finds show what we have been saying clearly enough.

[Aardwolf]

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

All you have done is decribe their motion without explaining why the droplets rise or fall. At 1000 times the density of the surrounding particles why does each stay airborn and in equilibruim?

[Aardwolf]

Seasmith,
Thanks for your conciliatory tone. But I don't think Dalton's law describes what Aardwolf and others are misconceiving as a macroscale atmospheric electrical drive against downward gravity resulting in clouds floating. Aveo's Youtube finds show what we have been saying clearly enough.

You stated that its natural for water to follow an electric field down towards the earth. Why not upwards as well, or even hold them in discrete strata? Why is that so ridiculous especially when you know they can be electrically manipulated?

[Aveo9]

All you have done is decribe their motion without explaining why the droplets rise or fall. At 1000 times the density of the surrounding particles why does each stay airborn and in equilibruim?

1) Water molecules leave the surface of the Earth / surface of a body of water
2) Water vapour is less dense than air
3) Because of the density difference, and/or because the air molecules around the water molecules are warmer than more remote air molecules, the air/vapour mixture rises
4) Eventually the temperature of the air/vapour mixture falls below the dew point
5) This causes the water vapour molecules to lose enough thermal energy that they group together and change phase. They are now formed into water droplets
6) Conservation of momentum applies - the water molecules still have upwards momentum from their vertical ascent, so they continue to climb as they condense. Their climb slows due to the downwards acceleration effect of gravity
7) The molecules eventually reach the apex of their climb, then begin to fall. The path of their motion is approximately parabolic as they fall outside the updraft column
8) EITHER: The water droplets reevaporate after falling below the base of the cloud, and rise back up into the cloud to repeat from step (5)
9) OR: The droplets are too large to fully evaporate, and they fall all the way to the ground as rain.

This occurs in both rain and fog; the only difference between them is the height of the cloud base.

I hope that makes clear what we've been trying to say. The reason for the rising and falling of the droplets is a kinetic one.

[webolife]

What he said.

Aardwolf,
Specifically to your electrical question, I'm saying that the processes involved in phase change are electrical [as heat], I'm also saying that coalescence of water droplets is electrical [electrostatic], so that water droplets [or snowflakes, or hail, or other ice crystals, as in cirrus clouds] grow to a size which exceeds their capacity to avoid reevaporation while they are falling [under the influence of gravity], or being pushed upward in the updrafts [gravitation/density-based convection] that characterize all clouds, which if this limit is exceeded results in precipitation.

[Aardwolf]

All you have done is decribe their motion without explaining why the droplets rise or fall. At 1000 times the density of the surrounding particles why does each stay airborn and in equilibruim?

1) Water molecules leave the surface of the Earth / surface of a body of water
2) Water vapour is less dense than air
3) Because of the density difference, and/or because the air molecules around the water molecules are warmer than more remote air molecules, the air/vapour mixture rises
4) Eventually the temperature of the air/vapour mixture falls below the dew point
5) This causes the water vapour molecules to lose enough thermal energy that they group together and change phase. They are now formed into water droplets
6) Conservation of momentum applies - the water molecules still have upwards momentum from their vertical ascent, so they continue to climb as they condense. Their climb slows due to the downwards acceleration effect of gravity
7) The molecules eventually reach the apex of their climb, then begin to fall. The path of their motion is approximately parabolic as they fall outside the updraft column
8) EITHER: The water droplets reevaporate after falling below the base of the cloud, and rise back up into the cloud to repeat from step (5)
9) OR: The droplets are too large to fully evaporate, and they fall all the way to the ground as rain.

This occurs in both rain and fog; the only difference between them is the height of the cloud base.

I hope that makes clear what we've been trying to say. The reason for the rising and falling of the droplets is a kinetic one.

As far as fog is concerned;

1) to 5) just describe water vapour which is not the issue here.

6) & 7) cannot be valid as the water particles had no upward momentum and are in liquid form from the ground upwards.

8) & 9) are not valid for fog, only for clouds.

So, you have not provided any valid mechanism for the existence of fog and its water in liquid from held at the surface.

[Aardwolf]

Duplicate in error.

[Aardwolf]

What he said.

Aardwolf,
Specifically to your electrical question, I'm saying that the processes involved in phase change are electrical [as heat], I'm also saying that coalescence of water droplets is electrical [electrostatic], so that water droplets [or snowflakes, or hail, or other ice crystals, as in cirrus clouds] grow to a size which exceeds their capacity to avoid reevaporation while they are falling [under the influence of gravity], or being pushed upward in the updrafts [gravitation/density-based convection] that characterize all clouds, which if this limit is exceeded results in precipitation.

I'm wasn't talking about phase changes, I was refering to your post previously that stated;

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

So they are able to manipulate water in liquid form to follow electric field lines to the ground. There is no phase change and no coalescing or precipitation. However even if there were it would be irrelevent because there is no change in the density which is still 1000 times the surrounding air whatever the size of droplet.

[Aveo9]

As far as fog is concerned;

1) to 5) just describe water vapour which is not the issue here.

6) & 7) cannot be valid as the water particles had no upward momentum and are in liquid form from the ground upwards.

8) & 9) are not valid for fog, only for clouds.

So, you have not provided any valid mechanism for the existence of fog and its water in liquid from held at the surface.

They are not in liquid form from the ground up. Water vapour rises off the surface and then condenses into droplets at a low height. These droplets do have upwards momentum because of their upwards motion when they were still vapour. It's exactly the same dynamics as in a cloud. Liquid water cannot rise off the surface using only a thermal or kinetic model - and there is no evidence that it does. I have already provided links that show the water vapour condensing at a low height.

When the droplets fall again, they either hit the ground (which is why the ground can get wet during fog) or they reevaporate and rise again.

You can get localised cases where water vapour instantly condenses as it rises into the air, and it makes it look like the ground is steaming. However this water either falls or re-evaporates very quickly, and the visual "steam" never rises very high.

The statement "the water particles had no upward momentum and are in liquid form from the ground upwards" is in direct conflict with the evidence presented so far. It's like saying that the EU model for the scarring of Mars is wrong because "it's actually covered in global oceans".

I invite you to present an electric plasma model that can explain the behaviour of fog and clouds in as much detail as the thermal-kinetic model that webolife and I have presented.

[starbiter]

Hello Gentle People: A pyroclastic flow can be up to 2,000 degrees F. It consists of boulders and large rocks which go down hill, as they should. In addition to the rocks and boulders are gases [including super heated steam] and extremely fine dust. The super heated gases and dust go down. They hug the ground. When momentum carries the dust and gas up hill, it returns to ground at the first opportunity. This isn't a warm zephyr. This is a problem for warm air doing what is claimed on this thread. We live in an Electric Universe. The pyroclastic flow appears to have an opposite charge to ash plumes and rising weather phonomena [storms]. It appears to be charge differential running the show. Electricity does more than warm air for thermodynamic action. We're really lucky to have Wal explaining all this in a manner that's understandable to slow people [me]. NickC posted this earlier.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

Also by Wal,

Water vapor in rising air cools and condenses to forms clouds. The conventional explanation for rising air relies upon solar heating. The electrical weather model has an additional galactic energy source (the same that powers the Sun) to drive the movement of air. It is the same energy source that drives ferocious high-level winds on the giant outer planets, where solar energy is extremely weak. Once the water vapor condenses into water droplets it is more plausible that millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometres above the Earth by electrical means, rather than by thermal updraughts. The clouds would act to reduce thermals.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

By Steve Smith,

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... clouds.htm

This seems to explain everything. If anyone disagrees, it would be wonderful to hear your position. But PLEASE, don't ignore it.

michael steinbacher

[Aveo9]

Thanks for those links.

Just a quick response before I read them: I don't deny that electrical charge differentiation occurs in a volcanic eruption, although I do have some reservations about it: For example, if electrical interactions were the dominant force, then shouldn't the ash clouds and lava columns (and pyroclastic flows) arrange themselves into filamentary pairs (as we see throughout the cosmos), rather than the billowing, churning clouds that we see?

I also don't deny that plasma interactions within the atmosphere are probably one of the leading causes of atmospheric circulation and convection. I also don't dispute that the reason for water molecules condensing around dust nuclei is ionic attraction.

The point I am disputing is the mechanism by which clouds form. The EU theory needs to explain the following at least as well as the thermal/kinetic model does:
- Why vapour only condenses in air with certain temperature and humidity conditions
- Why clouds exhibit the churning, rolling motion of rising and falling water droplets
- Why some droplets fall to the ground as rain while others (from the same local conditions) re-evaporate as they fall below the cloud base
- And most of all: Why can clouds form in isolated containers (when the thermal and humidity conditions are met) which are completely separate from the atmosphere and have no way of interacting with the plasma within it? Or - why can steam rise from a kettle in a sealed room deep underground? What ionised layer is it rising to?

Cheers

[Aardwolf]

I invite you to present an electric plasma model that can explain the behaviour of fog and clouds in as much detail as the thermal-kinetic model that webolife and I have presented.

That's the crux of the problem. The model doesn't describe the behaviour of the individual particles at all. It's all assumption. It certainly doesn't explain the individual momentum of the droplets which are far from the upwardly rising and subsequently falling description you provide. Have a look below;

[seasmith]

certainly doesn't explain the individual momentum of the droplets which are far...

Thermal drift motion, momentum; or local-field-induced orbits [molecular mass "momentum" motion ].
> Assuming some physical quanta for the momentum, droplets-photons-waves, moles, wtfr, to satisfy the "individual" quoted>
~What's the scaling ratio ? Plot the phase change?
Observed as mass or charge, what's the marketable difference ?
Really?
s

[webolife]

Aardwolf...
Nothing Aveo and I have said is an assumption, except that we likely both believe that observation and experiment are sufficient to validate a model. Everything you have said about the levitating effects of atmospheric electric fields for cloud flotation is built entirely on assumptions. Both Aveo and I have acknowledged the importance of electrical interactions of water molecules in the atmosphere, and gave several examples how this works. We have also repeatedly explained in very plain terms that water vapor, which is LESS DENSE THAN AIR, RISES through the air at up to 30 meters per sec (depending on the temperature gradient below the cloud -- faster in a cold front, slower in a warm front) producing different shapes and sizes of clouds. Nothing is working against gravity here except sheer momentum. The water droplets in the cloud, whether it is fog or at any level in the atmosphere, ARE ALREADY RISING at this initial velocity AS THEY FORM; and if they never become large enough to overcome this rising current of air, they STAY SUSPENDED. This is not mysterious. It is clearly explained and observable. In the case of advection fog, the cloud forms in another location and is blown over to you by the higher pressure in that location. The coalescence of small water droplets requires nuclei of condensation [dust], otherwise they electrically repel each other. Hence my previous comment about washing your car before a rainstorm. Other than relative altitude, there is no difference between a stratus cloud and fog. By supplying the fog droplets at the airport with sufficient countercharge to overcome their repulsion toward each other, they were able to precipitate them (as larger droplets) to the ground. A great advancement, and an acknowledgment of the electrical nature of atmospheric water droplets. Dalton's rule, and gravity, in action.