Electric Clouds

[puffngrunt]

I have always been interested in why clouds, for instance, resist gravity. Why don’t they just fall down? Take air. Why is it immune to gravity, too? That’s to say, why doesn’t the earth’s atmosphere unmix itself? Specifically, why don’t the lighter nitrogen molecules rise, the heavier oxygen fall down slowly and the really heavy argon fall even faster? When I asked my science teacher these questions, he just stood there with his mouth open. He was a physical education major and only taught science because he was our newest hire.

After several agonizing moments of silence while he tried desperately to remember what he had learned in his one college science course (meteorology), he finally said: “Wind. Wind keeps the air mixed together.”
And what about those spots on the earth where no wind ever blows from one week to the next? That was when I realized this guy was in over his head. I politely thanked him, mentally threw in the clutch and drove away from a science career after that.

[mharratsc]

Ok guys- this thread is on the verge of derailing, I think. Originally, this thread was about Clouds and Gravity, not 'rarified elements in a vacuum at 1 G'... :\

From a meteorological standpoint, I think the viewpoint of the 'electrical' advocates is sound, based on the fact that our 360 degree spherical environment is not, I repeat- NOT homogenous! It is entirely different than watching a beaker of mercury get warm in a hyperbaric chamber in a lab. Gases have thermodynamic laws that they follow in neutral environments under the effect of gravity, true... but what happens when electrokinetic effects grow in magnitude in a given area affecting a given portion of the atmosphere?

My point is- very, very strong thermodynamic effects will outweigh electrodynamic effects, but relatively weak electrodynamic effects can turn thermodynamics on its ear in short order, right?

In my mind, the problem (distinctly, with Meteorology) is that it is a well-studied and established science, and this blinds anyone from looking for anything new. Jim pointed out the thread that we had going here about Electric Tornados- the author of the thread had initially put his suspicions forth here that there were electrodynamic characteristics that should be studied regarding tornados and was perhaps a little overwhelmed by the responses he received from everyone here regarding the subject!

Think about it- when you think about electrodynamic studies done on the atmosphere, what do you think of? Lightning experiments. Have you really ever heard of any studies being done (at least in most popular media outlets) regarding 'electrodynamically-induced motion of molecules in Earth's atmosphere'? Yeah- not until you got to Thunderbolts you hadn't, I'll wager...

EU proponents are the knights chasing the Questing Beast- the object of our quest is invisible to everyone but ourselves, and thus it is immensely hard to convince people whom consider themselves experts or masters of their fields of study that they've been missing something fundamentally important all their lives, but they can't actually see what it is that we're talking about!

Makes for a tough sell at the conference table, eh? :\

[Aardwolf]

I'm definitely seeing this differently than you... the "external source" of the Hg's energy, while it may have some electrical facet, is simply the temperature of the system that is containing it. That temperature, whatever it is caused by [being in a warm room, receiving radiant energy from___?, or whatever!], is sufficient to vaporize some of your liquid Hg and in doing so elevating its KE to an escape velocity...

Agreed. The Hg atoms within the liquid are subject to thermal motion but this only gives the escaping Hg atoms their initial energy and velocity. I assume you appreciate the liquid cannot continue to provide that energy to the escaped particles for eternity. And while I accept further energy can be gained from the air particles this should only bring it to equilibrium, not provide it with additional energy to overide the relatively increased pull of gravity on it compared to the air molecules.

...since when do we need any additional mechanism to explain why all air molecules don't just fall to the ground under the influence of gravity, as Aristotle so famously protested?

Well what is the original mechanism you are refering to? That air in a completely sealed room doesn't eventually seperate into it's contituant layers as per their atomic weight/density is something that has never been explained. I'm just highlighting the problem by focussing on Hg because it is very heavy compared to the rest of the air so cannot be easily hand waved away as mixture via turbulance wind etc. in static conditions. And even assuming that this is not a problem, air doesn't fall in air for the same reason liquid water doesn't fall in liquid water. It's in a state of equilibrium. Only differences in temperature cause movement. However a foreign body in this substance should be effected by gravitational differences.

If you continue to avoid the 747 analogy, it will be difficult for you to see what I'm trying to say.

If can show me that Hg atoms contain onboard internal combustion processes to convert chemical to kinetic energy, then i will accept as a valid analogy. Alternatively demostrate that a plane can stay airborne forever after initial takeoff. Hg atoms never return to the liquid if all other conditions remain the same.

Other readers of my posts throughout this forum will be amused at our discussion, as I am a strong supporter of operant fields concepts; I simply think you are blaming electric fields for something that is not their fault!
"It's not my fault!" -- Hans Solo, aboard the Millenium Falcon.

Well, as gravity only theory is obviously false and airborne particles have been proven to be manipulated artificially with electrical fields, why are you so adamant electric fields cannot be blamed in nature?

[Aardwolf]

When you turn the heat off under a pan of H2O or Hg, everything starts cooling down. Water and mercury in the gas state will condense back to a liquid state as their thermal collisions become less violent (KE is decreasing, overall) and they will revert to liquid behavior.

For Hg I was refering to normal room temp evaporation which does not return to liquid.

[Aardwolf]

Ok guys- this thread is on the verge of derailing, I think. Originally, this thread was about Clouds and Gravity, not 'rarified elements in a vacuum at 1 G'... :\

I am refering to Hg in normal room temp, air environment. Hence, essentially under the same influence as water in fog but eradicating the misleading "wind causes it" argument.

[mharratsc]

Sorry Aardwolf- I have to confess that I was trying to bring the conversation back to a more 'meteorological' theme... and truthfully I had no idea mercury would do that at room temperature! o.O

Learn something new every day, I swear...

[webolife]

Ultimately, isn't this thread about what causes "condensed" material to "float" in a matrix of less dense material?
Regardless of the source of the kinetic energy, internal or external, KE is what enables this for water droplets, hailstones, or jumbo jets... oh, also moons and planets. Throughout the universe, the force of gravity [regardless of whether you accept it as a cumulative electric effect or some other theory] is balanced by kinetic energy, or in particular angular momentum. Additional levitational fields are not required to understand these effects. Occam.

[Aardwolf]

Sorry Aardwolf- I have to confess that I was trying to bring the conversation back to a more 'meteorological' theme... and truthfully I had no idea mercury would do that at room temperature! o.O

Learn something new every day, I swear...

No problem. I agree it's straying a little but it's easier to discuss Hg because of the weight/density compared to air. The process that keeps all particles suspended against gravity when compared to their surroundings however, must be the same.

[Aardwolf]

Regardless of the source of the kinetic energy, internal or external, KE is what enables this for water droplets, hailstones, or jumbo jets... oh, also moons and planets.

You're skipping the whole point. The source of the KE is exactly what were trying to determine. Humour me, let's regard the source.

Throughout the universe, the force of gravity [regardless of whether you accept it as a cumulative electric effect or some other theory] is balanced by kinetic energy, or in particular angular momentum. Additional levitational fields are not required to understand these effects. Occam.

This doesn't have anything to do with movement in atmosphere. It only explains orbits. If those orbiting objects were to enter an atmosphere or collide and slow their momentum, they would quickly fail. The particles we are discussing are not orbiting the planet, they are suspended, indefininately with no known supply of the continued energy required.

If I fire a steel bullet into the sky, it has plenty on KE, why does it come back down? I assume you would say it's because gravity pulled it back down. But if so, then why shouldn't the same thing happen to the much denser Hg atom? Why isn't KE keeping the bullet suspended?

[webolife]

In the case of the steel bullet, and the 747, friction/air resistance slows their flight. But we're talking about water vapor molecules, Hg vapor molecules, and tiny water droplets, all of which would "fall" if they were not kept suspended by the Brownian motion or [gravity/density driven] upward draft of surrounding air/vapor molecules. Now if all you are telling me is that electirical interactions between molecules in the atmosphere drive their repulsive behavior, elastically keeping them in motion sufficient to keep them from falling

, then I have already established and agreed to that point. Then I would say that ES keeps the KE "conserved" to at least some extent. What provides the initial KE? It depends on the situation, whatever local energy transformations are at work, but generally and ultimately, it is solar energy [insolation]. If what you are trying to say is that there is an atmospheric/peripheral electrical field that is directed vectorially opposite to the gravitational field, and that this field is responsible for the suspension of fog and clouds, then I am calling that view into question; not because I do not like electrical explanations or prefer a gravity-only approach [which is not true], but because simple thermodynamics and density considerations, and their concurrent atmospheric pressure gradient effects, already explain clouds perfectly well. Electricity governs or at least affects the behavior of all atoms/particles in the universe. But IMO it weakens the case for EU to make it act in ways that are unnecesarily controversial. The known effects of electricity and plasmas explain or analogize cosmological and microscopic observations. Miles Mathis explains electricity as an opposing force to gravity, if I understand him correctly, and I am open to his perspective, but let's not make our explanations more obtuse, just so electricity can be included/blamed for an effect. Occam.

[Aardwolf]

In the case of the steel bullet, and the 747, friction/air resistance slows their flight.

..and then gravity pulls them down.

Please explain why Hg molecules do not experience friction?

But we're talking about water vapor molecules, Hg vapor molecules, and tiny water droplets, all of which would "fall" if they were not kept suspended by the Brownian motion or [gravity/density driven] upward draft of surrounding air/vapor molecules.

This is just plainly wrong. Brownian motion is random and as such cannot exert a force in any particular direction. To keep a object suspended against gravity the brownian motion would need to be counteracting the pull of gravity. Brownian motion has an average zero effect on the particles direction of travel, yet you use to explain why its suspended, ignoring the force of gravity on the particle. I've explained this before but again you use this erroneous reasoning.

Now if all you are telling me is that electirical interactions between molecules in the atmosphere drive their repulsive behavior, elastically keeping them in motion sufficient to keep them from falling

, then I have already established and agreed to that point. Then I would say that ES keeps the KE "conserved" to at least some extent.

Yes there are electrical interactions between the particles, but the KE energy is not conserved, it's doing work. Work against gravity and friction.

What provides the initial KE? It depends on the situation, whatever local energy transformations are at work, but generally and ultimately, it is solar energy [insolation]. If what you are trying to say is that there is an atmospheric/peripheral electrical field that is directed vectorially opposite to the gravitational field, and that this field is responsible for the suspension of fog and clouds, then I am calling that view into question; not because I do not like electrical explanations or prefer a gravity-only approach [which is not true], but because simple thermodynamics and density considerations, and their concurrent atmospheric pressure gradient effects, already explain clouds perfectly well.

It explains it for you because you accept the mainstream explanation. Anyone critical can see they are woefully inadequate.

Electricity governs or at least affects the behavior of all atoms/particles in the universe. But IMO it weakens the case for EU to make it act in ways that are unnecesarily controversial. The known effects of electricity and plasmas explain or analogize cosmological and microscopic observations. Miles Mathis explains electricity as an opposing force to gravity, if I understand him correctly, and I am open to his perspective, but let's not make our explanations more obtuse, just so electricity can be included/blamed for an effect. Occam.

The gravity only and mechanical explanations and assumptions that accompany atmospheric effects are far more complex and incomprehensible than an electric field explanation. Especially when you consider there are experiments and patents for equipment that can induce/disperse these effects electrically. Occam.

[Aardwolf]

So we can be clear that Brownian motion cannot be working against gravity see the excerpt below from here

"The theory of Brownian movement explains the random motion of a particle under the influence of random forces caused by molecules and frictional forces. The random character of the force implies that its action during the time interval τ1 is completely independent of the action during the time interval τ2, unless these intervals overlap. The average force, after a sufficiently large period of time, is equal to zero, and the average displacement Δx of a Brownian particle is also found to be zero."

So Webolife, Brownian motion (and wind or updrafts obviously) cannot be working against gravity keeping Hg particles suspended. What does?

[webolife]

I never said or meant that Brownian motion caused the KE, only that it maintained it, which you are simply confirming here. I'm out of ways to tell you what I'm getting at... maybe Aveo and JJ have some more insights?

[Aardwolf]

I never said or meant that Brownian motion caused the KE, only that it maintained it, which you are simply confirming here. I'm out of ways to tell you what I'm getting at... maybe Aveo and JJ have some more insights?

And I never said you stated it caused KE. I already agreed that the initial KE was caused by thermal collisions in the liquid. I'm arguing that it cannot be continuing the suspension. To do so would require the net force to be upwards against gravity. Brownian motion does not have that effect. Brownian motion does not cause the suspension of foreign bodies in a gas or liquid, it causes random movement of the foreign body that is already suspended by other means. Look it up.

[webolife]

Too many times around the same circle. You think a counter to gravity electrical field about the earth causes vapors and tiny particles of various densities to be suspended in the atmosphere. I think the electrical fields about particles cause them to interact with each other while suspended by other more ordinary means, such as density/convection considerations, which are easily explained by thermodynamics, in agreement with [not counter to] gravity, and demonstrable in my kitchen. I further have explained that simple convection is able to account for charge separation in the atmosphere and in clouds, because of the electrical interactions between particles of various sizes regardless of relative particle mass. You think the KE of evaporation is like shooting a bullet out of a gun, and that the bullet must come down [under "gravity alone"]. I say that if the bullet has enough KE it does not come down, even under gravity. I say insolation is the natural cause of that KE, although other local energy transformations are in play in various situations. You seem to insist that electrical fields drive counter to gravity motions, regardless of particle size or density. While agreeing to orbital vector geometry [easily explanable in gravitational terms], yet you disallow that "normal" KE of thermodynamics can balance the effects of gravity for even the tiniest of particles. I still say it does not serve EU to try to make unmeasured electric fields do things they are simply unnecessary for. I don't know where else to go in this debate.