Electrostatics Cause Moist Air to Rise in The Atmoshphere (James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes)

[James McGinn]

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.

What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?


It's no different from the standard definition.

The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.

Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.

I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.

The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

"Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.

I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms."


Wow, too bad. You almost made it to the high school science chapter on meteorology, there.

Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than dry air of their temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004. A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might half half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh

However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon, as they are NOT the same density, even with their water, but less dense. A temperature increase of only 1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the load of a cumulus.

Water in clouds, as much as a million pounds of droplets in a good cumulus, is hauled by the buoyancy of warmed air (transferred from sunlight warmed ground or warm water), by natural convection.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

"Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.

I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms."

===========

COMMENT

Wow, too bad. You almost made it to the high school science chapter on meteorology, there.

Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004. A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh

However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon, as they are NOT the same density as their surroundings, even with their water-load, but less dense. A temperature increase of only 1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the water-load of a typical cumulus.

Water in clouds, as much as a *million pounds of droplets* in a good cumulus, is hauled upward by the buoyancy of warmed air (warmth transferred from sunlight-warmed ground or warm-water), by natural convection. It's a giant heat engine and a giant hot air balloon, with water as its payload.

[Serg io]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm

<snip crap>

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

"Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms."
===========
COMMENT
Wow, too bad. You almost made it to the high school science chapter on meteorology, there.
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004. A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh
However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon, as they are NOT the same density as their surroundings, even with their water-load, but less dense. A temperature increase of only 1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the water-load of a typical cumulus.
Water in clouds, as much as a *million pounds of droplets* in a good cumulus, is hauled upward by the buoyancy of warmed air (warmth transferred from sunlight-warmed ground or warm-water), by natural convection. It's a giant heat engine and a giant hot air balloon, with water as its payload.

sci.physics has been telling McGinn that since 2014, he doesnt know
math, so he cannot understand, he also doesnt know any of the sciences.
He doesnt know how to read graphs or tables, nor understand the
language, or basic terms, like density. McGinn is All Troll.

He states his imagination(s) as fact(s).

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than
dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004.

This is a plainly absurd claim. Show us the math.

You can't. Because you are just parroting back meteorology bssed pseudoscience.



A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

Post by Steve BH
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh
However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon,

Absurd. This is just propaganda, not science.

You don't understand this stuff.


as they are NOT the same density as their surroundings, even with their water-load, but less dense. A temperature increase of only1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the water-load of a typical cumulus.

Post by Steve BH
Water in clouds, as much as a *million pounds of droplets* in a good cumulus, is hauled upward by the buoyancy of warmed air (warmth transferred from sunlight-warmed ground or warm-water), by natural convection. It's a giant heat engine and a giant hot air balloon, with water as its payload.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than
dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004.

This is a plainly absurd claim. Show us the math.
You can't. Because you are just parroting back meteorology bssed pseudoscience.
A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

Post by Steve BH
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh
However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon,

Absurd. This is just propaganda, not science.
You don't understand this stuff.
as they are NOT the same density as their surroundings, even with their water-load, but less dense. A temperature increase of only1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the water-load of a typical cumulus.

Post by Steve BH
Water in clouds, as much as a *million pounds of droplets* in a good cumulus, is hauled upward by the buoyancy of warmed air (warmth transferred from sunlight-warmed ground or warm-water), by natural convection. It's a giant heat engine and a giant hot air balloon, with water as its payload.

We start with PV = nRT. How much does the density change going from a temperature of 273 K to 274 K?

What is the density of air at 273 K?, assuming 20% O2 and 80 N2 for simplicity? I can do this math. It's YOU who can't do the math.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than
dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004.

This is a plainly absurd claim. Show us the math.
You can't. Because you are just parroting back meteorology bssed pseudoscience.
A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

Post by Steve BH
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh
However, a cumulus cloud is NOT the same temperature as the air around it, but warmer. They therefore rise like a hot air balloon,

Absurd. This is just propaganda, not science.
You don't understand this stuff.
as they are NOT the same density as their surroundings, even with their water-load, but less dense. A temperature increase of only1 K makes air at 0 C less dense by a factor of 273/274 = 0.99635, and that is enough to compensate for 1.0036 density due to water, or 10 times the water-load of a typical cumulus.

Post by Steve BH
Water in clouds, as much as a *million pounds of droplets* in a good cumulus, is hauled upward by the buoyancy of warmed air (warmth transferred from sunlight-warmed ground or warm-water), by natural convection. It's a giant heat engine and a giant hot air balloon, with water as its payload.

We start with PV = nRT. How much does the density change going from a temperature of 273 K to 274 K?
What is the density of air at 273 K?, assuming 20% O2 and 80 N2 for simplicity? I can do this math. It's YOU who can't do the math.

So, you came here to tell us you can do math.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than
dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004.

This is a plainly absurd claim. Show us the math.
You can't. Because you are just parroting back meteorology bssed pseudoscience.
A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

Post by Steve BH
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh

Jim, you complete idiot, the most important sentence in that article...

"What’s more, the cloud is less dense than dry air, so it's buoyant."

.. is the one that stabs you right through the heart. You, of course, will never get over this, no matter how many times it is shoved down your throat, you are just too stupid to get with the program.

You just can't cope with science at this level, even though that would be high school math, so you should just fold your pathetic tent and get the heck out of Dodge before you are strung up yet again, you miserable troll...

[James McGinn]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Parcels of air that have visible droplets in them ARE heavier than
dry air of that same temperature, by a factor of about 1.0004.

This is a plainly absurd claim. Show us the math.
You can't. Because you are just parroting back meteorology bssed pseudoscience.
A cloud that is a billion cubic meters (each one with a mass of 1.3 kg = 1300 g) might have half a billion grams of water in it, or one gram of water for every 2600 g of air = 1+ 1/2600 = 1.00038. The volume of air to water is 3400 to 1.

Post by Steve BH
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49786/how-much-does-cloud-weigh

Jim, you complete idiot, the most important sentence in that article...
"What’s more, the cloud is less dense than dry air, so it's buoyant."

Show us the math, dumbass.

Post by p***@gmail.com
.. is the one that stabs you right through the heart. You, of course, will never get over this, no matter how many times it is shoved down your throat, you are just too stupid to get with the program.
You just can't cope with science at this level, even though that would be high school math, so you should just fold your pathetic tent and get the heck out of Dodge before you are strung up yet again, you miserable troll...

I'm not going to make your argument for you.

It must be frustrating to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

[Steve BH]

What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH
What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?

If you are confused about the phase of the moisture in the atmosphere then you might try looking at a phase diagram.

If these simple suggestions don't help you then maybe you should consider finding a new hobby.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?
If you are confused about the phase of the moisture in the atmosphere then you might try looking at a phase diagram.
If these simple suggestions don't help you then maybe you should consider finding a new hobby.

A phase diagram shows me plenty of water in the gas state (single H20 molecules) at temperatures far below boiling. There's even a partial pressure for the gas state at the H2O triple point.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?
If you are confused about the phase of the moisture in the atmosphere then you might try looking at a phase diagram.
If these simple suggestions don't help you then maybe
you should consider finding a new hobby.

A phase diagram shows me plenty of water in the gas state
(single H20 molecules) at temperatures far below boiling.
There's even a partial pressure for the gas state at the
H2O triple point.

I envy your creative reading skills.

[Serg io]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?
If you are confused about the phase of the moisture in the atmosphere then you might try looking at a phase diagram.
If these simple suggestions don't help you then maybe you should consider finding a new hobby.

A phase diagram shows me plenty of water in the gas state (single H20 molecules) at temperatures far below boiling. There's even a partial pressure for the gas state at the H2O triple point.

McGinn is all troll...

no need to reply to him,

you will only get insults from him

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by James McGinn
Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?

Wrong, Jim, there is zero ambiguity regarding the word 'vapor' in physics, and *you* would do anything to avoid using it in a technical context because you can't face the truth because you have too much invested in your fantasies. From Wiki...

"water vapor or aqueous vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice."

See? Not ambiguous at all!

[James McGinn]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by James McGinn
Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?

Wrong, Jim, there is zero ambiguity regarding the word 'vapor'

I disagree. For some people it is liquid. For some it is gaseous. For others it can be either. There is no common agreement.

There is a lot of liquid H2O in earth's atmosphere. But there is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.

Post by p***@gmail.com
in physics, . . .

Uh, I'm a physicists.

and *you* would do anything to avoid using it in a technical context because you can't face the truth because you have too much invested in your fantasies. From Wiki...

Post by p***@gmail.com
"water vapor or aqueous vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice."
See? Not ambiguous at all!

Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. It is all liquid.

Consult an H2O phase diagram if you don't believe me.

I'm a physicist. Trust me. There is no 'Cold Steam' in the atmosphere:

Disputing The Existence of 'Cold Steam' in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by James McGinn
Uh, I'm a physicists.

Nice spelling, Jim.

No, that's a lie, you cannot possibly be a 'physicist', no one who is actually a physicist would ever believe that after reading your drivel... you are just another dumbfuck troll...

[Serg io.]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by James McGinn
Uh, I'm a physicists.

Nice spelling, Jim.
No, that's a lie, you cannot possibly be a 'physicist', no one who is actually a physicist would ever believe that after reading your drivel... you are just another dumbfuck troll...

Hey McGinn, how does your shirt dry on a clothes line ?

Evaporation OR "JM's special Plasmas" ?

ANSWER NOW !!

or I'll start reposting your plasma poop....

[for the crowd, duh => 3 people, this is the first time JM has
acknowledge the existance of evaporation! ]

[James McGinn]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by James McGinn
Uh, I'm a physicists.

Nice spelling, Jim.
No, that's a lie, you cannot possibly be a 'physicist', no one who is actually a physicist would ever believe that after reading your drivel... you are just another dumbfuck troll...

You simpletons think wiki searches are experiments.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. It is all liquid.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure. That would contradict the kinetic theory of gases.

Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial pressure of gas above it, but at 100 C the partial pressure suddenly rises to 760 torr, so that it boils? But how does water ever boil at 99 C without any partial pressure, which it cannot have if it give off no gas? Explain this mystery to us.

[Ser gio]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. It is all liquid.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure. That would contradict the kinetic theory of gases.
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial pressure of gas above it, but at 100 C the partial pressure suddenly rises to 760 torr, so that it boils? But how does water ever boil at 99 C without any partial pressure, which it cannot have if it give off no gas? Explain this mystery to us.

[Facts are Facts, and now McFly is trapped]

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ser gio

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. It is all liquid.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure. That would contradict the
kinetic theory of gases.
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it, but at 100 C the partial pressure suddenly
rises to 760 torr, so that it boils? But how does water ever boil at 99
C without any partial pressure, which it cannot have if it give off no
gas? Explain this mystery to us.

[Facts are Facts, and now McFly is trapped]

The irrational are never trapped. They always have their own mental dark
woods to run further into. He’s long gone from sight.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
It is all liquid.

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure.

I agree. (Remember when I told you I am a physicist.) Partial pressure is applicable to gases only. And There is no H2O gas in the atmosphere.

Maybe if you didn't have your head up your ass you would realize that there is a difference between partial pressure and vapor pressure

Post by Steve BH
That would contradict the kinetic theory of gases.

LOL. Like you have a clue.

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

[Steve BH]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
It is all liquid.

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure.

I agree. (Remember when I told you I am a physicist.) Partial pressure is >applicable to gases only. And There is no H2O gas in the atmosphere.

You're not a physicist. Somebody would have taught you Raoult's law by now. And you could calculate n/V = P/RT for a simple gas like water or mixture like dry air.

Maybe if you didn't have your head up your ass you would realize that there is >a difference between partial pressure and vapor pressure

Maybe if you'd read a book you're realize that meteorologists only mean "H2O gas" when they say water vapor, so there is no difference. The partial pressure of water gas is the partial pressure of water vapor, as they are the same thing.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/583

Since only gases exert partial pressures, the partial pressure of water "vapor" in the atmosphere is the partial pressure of water gas. You can't have this both ways and say there's no gaseous water in the atmosphere, but there is a partial pressure of water. Molecules of gas exert partial pressures, liquid droplets and liquids do not (unless they give off a gas that then does).

Post by Steve BH
That would contradict the kinetic theory of gases.

LOL. Like you have a clue.

Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) >vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean), is the only thing you see on the gas side of a phase diagram for water, and represents water in gas state because liquids cannot cause the molecular impacts that result in partial pressure in gases.

You are trying to convince this newsgroup that there is a partial pressure of water gas (gaseous H2O) over a cup of water (hot or cold), but not a lake or ocean.

If I misrepresent you, feel free to tell us that there is water gas and water gas partial pressure above water in a glass or container, but NOT above natural bodies of water. But then I ask "Why not?" How can water tell whether it's in a hot pan or a hot pond?

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Except that there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
It is all liquid.

Liquid H2O cannot exert a partial pressure.

I agree. (Remember when I told you I am a physicist.) Partial pressure is >applicable to gases only. And There is no H2O gas in the atmosphere.

You're not a physicist. Somebody would have taught you Raoult's law by now. And you could calculate n/V = P/RT for a simple gas like water or mixture like dry air.

Maybe if you didn't have your head up your ass you would realize that there is >a difference between partial pressure and vapor pressure

Maybe if you'd read a book you're realize that meteorologists only mean "H2O gas" when they say water vapor, so there is no difference.

So, you came here to tell us you can read. LOL. Hey Bodkin, we found your long lost brother.



The partial pressure of water gas is the partial pressure of water vapor, as they are the same thing.

Post by Steve BH
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/583
Since only gases exert partial pressures, the partial pressure of water "vapor" in the atmosphere is the partial pressure of water gas.

You reason like a mental retard.


You can't have this both ways and say there's no gaseous water in the atmosphere, but there is a partial pressure of water. Molecules of gas exert partial pressures, liquid droplets and liquids do not


Now you are just making shit up.


(unless they give off a gas that then does).

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH
That would contradict the kinetic theory of gases.

LOL. Like you have a clue.

Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Evidence? Keep in mind your imagination doesn't count.

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) >vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean),

That's vapor pressure, dumbass.

is the only thing you see on the gas side of a phase diagram for water, and represents water in gas state because liquids cannot cause the molecular impacts that result in partial pressure in gases.

Why don't you write a paper to inform the world that vapor pressure doesn't exist. You'll win the Nobel Prize!!!

Post by Steve BH
You are trying to convince this newsgroup that there is a partial pressure of water gas (gaseous H2O) over a cup of water (hot or cold), but not a lake or ocean.

Leave me out of your imagination.

Post by Steve BH
If I misrepresent you, feel free to tell us that there is water gas and water gas partial pressure above water in a glass or container, but NOT above natural bodies of water. But then I ask "Why not?" How can water tell whether it's in a hot pan or a hot pond?

Your education is not my responsibility.

Sorry,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16597

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Evidence? Keep in mind your imagination doesn't count.

Definition of partial pressure: "the pressure that would be exerted by one of the gases in a mixture if it occupied the same volume on its own."

Google it.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) >vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean),

That's vapor pressure, dumbass.

Same thing here. It is H2O gas partial pressure. There is no such thing as "vapor pressure" that is caused by something other than a gas. If you measure it as a pressure, it's caused by H2O gas.

Post by James McGinn
is the only thing you see on the gas side of a phase diagram for water, and represents water in gas state because liquids cannot cause the molecular impacts that result in partial pressure in gases.
Why don't you write a paper to inform the world that vapor pressure doesn't exist. You'll win the Nobel Prize!!!

In the way you mean "vapor pressure" with no gas in sight, but only liquid, the world already takes this for granted. Pressure is caused by gas particle impacts at 500 m/sec. Not by water fog droplets kissing your tush. Why don't YOU go out and convince the world it is?

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
If I misrepresent you, feel free to tell us that there is water gas and water gas partial pressure above water in a glass or container, but NOT above natural bodies of water. But then I ask "Why not?" How can water tell whether it's in a hot pan or a hot pond?

Your education is not my responsibility.

Then what are you doing on this forum? I simply represent all the professionals you are trying to convince of you bizarre ideas. One of which is the pressure exerted by fog droplets above a pan of almost-boiling water. Yeah, that must be intense. 100 kilobars of moist droplet cling.

Even you must be able to see how bad your position is. But I'm interested in mental illness, so I'm curious to see how you justify delusions.

Have at it.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Evidence? Keep in mind your imagination doesn't count.

Definition of partial pressure: "the pressure that would be exerted by one of the gases in a mixture if it occupied the same volume on its own."

Google it.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) >vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean),

That's vapor pressure, dumbass.

Same thing here. It is H2O gas partial pressure. There is no such thing as "vapor pressure" that is caused by something other than a gas. If you measure it as a pressure, it's caused by H2O gas.

Post by James McGinn
is the only thing you see on the gas side of a phase diagram for water, and represents water in gas state because liquids cannot cause the molecular impacts that result in partial pressure in gases.
Why don't you write a paper to inform the world that vapor pressure doesn't exist. You'll win the Nobel Prize!!!

In the way you mean "vapor pressure" with no gas in sight, but only liquid, the world already takes this for granted. Pressure is caused by gas particle impacts at 500 m/sec. Not by water fog droplets kissing your tush. Why don't YOU go out and convince the world it is?

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
If I misrepresent you, feel free to tell us that there is water gas and water gas partial pressure above water in a glass or container, but NOT above natural bodies of water. But then I ask "Why not?" How can water tell whether it's in a hot pan or a hot pond?

Your education is not my responsibility.

Then what are you doing on this forum? I simply represent all the professionals you are trying to convince of you bizarre ideas. One of which is the pressure exerted by fog droplets above a pan of almost-boiling water. Yeah, that must be intense. 100 kilopascals of moist droplet cling. Pretty intense!

Even you must be able to see how bad your position is. But I'm interested in mental illness, so I'm curious to see how you justify delusions.

Have at it.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Evidence? Keep in mind your imagination doesn't count.

Definition of partial pressure: "the pressure that would be exerted by one of the gases in a mixture if it occupied the same volume on its own."
Google it.

Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by Steve BH
Do you really believe that liquid water at 99 C exerts no partial
pressure of gas above it,

Yes. As I explained, partial pressure is applicable to gases, not to (liquid) >vapor. It exerts vapor pressure, you fucking mental retard.

You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean),

That's vapor pressure, dumbass.

Same thing here. It is H2O gas partial pressure.

Evidence?

Post by Steve BH
There is no such thing as "vapor pressure"

Tell us why you believe this, you fucking mental retard.

Your imagination isn't evidence.


that is caused by something other than a gas. If you measure it as a pressure, it's caused by H2O gas.

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
is the only thing you see on the gas side of a phase diagram for water, and represents water in gas state because liquids cannot cause the molecular impacts that result in partial pressure in gases.
Why don't you write a paper to inform the world that vapor pressure doesn't exist. You'll win the Nobel Prize!!!

In the way you mean "vapor pressure" with no gas in sight, but only liquid, the world already takes this for granted. Pressure is caused by gas particle impacts at 500 m/sec. Not by water fog droplets kissing your tush. Why don't YOU go out and convince the world it is?

You got nothing!!!

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
If I misrepresent you, feel free to tell us that there is water gas and water gas partial pressure above water in a glass or container, but NOT above natural bodies of water. But then I ask "Why not?" How can water tell whether it's in a hot pan or a hot pond?

Your education is not my responsibility.

Then what are you doing on this forum?

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

Post by Steve BH
I simply represent all the professionals

I hope they aren't paying you.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
Well, clearly you do NOT, if you think anything but a gas can exert a partial pressure. It can't.

Evidence? Keep in mind your imagination doesn't count.

Definition of partial pressure: "the pressure that would be exerted by one of the gases in a mixture if it occupied the same volume on its own."
Google it.

Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure. You think there's something totally different exerted by liquids which you call "vapor pressure" are are sure is not just another name for gas partial pressure, but some spooky pressure exerted by liquid droplets.

You got any equations for this? Because you won't find anything about it in texts. Kinetic gas theory is about gases, not droplets of vapor. All the pressure equations involve gas, not little droplets.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
You're the only place I'm seeing retardation. Water partial pressure is easily measurable above water at any temperature (including the ocean),

That's vapor pressure, dumbass.

Same thing here. It is H2O gas partial pressure.

Evidence?

Post by Steve BH
There is no such thing as "vapor pressure"

Tell us why you believe this, you fucking mental retard.
Your imagination isn't evidence.

Neither is yours. I can't get you evidence of a negative. Nobody is going to say "droplets don't exert partial pressure" because that's obvious to everybody in the world but you. If they did, there'd be a whole set of equations for the pressure they produced, and mechanisms for it, and so on. A whole field of chemistry and physics. You're the one that claims it: "droplet pressure." Let's see YOUR cites for it.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
I simply represent all the professionals

I hope they aren't paying you.

They aren't. But any professional at any university you buttonhole will tell you the same thing I am about partial pressure. For free.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure.

Semantics.

You remind me of Sergio. You are too dullwitted to comprehend the subtleties of language.

The suspended water droplets in moist air DO EXERT PRESSURE. (Nobody but you disputes this.) But the terminology that is used to describe it is "vapor pressure." Technically I suppose you could refer to it as being "partial." But the convention that has developed, in order to distinguish it from what is conventionally referred to as partial pressure (gas only), is to refer to it as vapor pressure.

Retards like you should avoid science because the collective effects of your dumbness has turned much of science into an endless whirlpool of semantic nonsense.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure.

Semantics.

Not at all. The pressures exerted by gas molecules at 500 m/sec are gigantic compared with the kiss of great suspended drops of water.

Post by James McGinn
You remind me of Sergio. You are too dullwitted to comprehend the subtleties >of language.

It's not a subtlety of language. The pressure exerted by N gas particles on walls of a box of volume V is P = 2/3 [N/V] Ek where Ek = 1/2 mv^2 is the mean RMS kinetic energy of a particle. Water droplets have no kinetic energy compared with N gas molecules each with kinetic energy Ek. Each air molecule is moving faster than the speed of sound, and water droplets are moving a few mm/sec. The mass of the air is far larger, so you do the math to find the energy and momentum. Pressure from droplets is neglectable. But gas pressure at 1 atm = 101,000 N/m^2 = J/m^3. That's water molecules at 100 C, but cannot be droplets.

IF you want to write it PV = 2/3 N Ek

At 273 K (ideal gas) we get kinetic energy/mole = 3 R/2 x 273 = 3400 J/mole

For water a mole is 0.018 kg, so our velocity = sqrt[2E/m] = 2*3400/.018 = 614 m/sec.

Of course water is not an ideal gas and the heat capacity is three times more (it's about 36 J/mole/K not 12.8 as here, but this is within a factor of 3). Your 18 grams of water "vapor" at room temp still needs to be doing hundreds of m/sec to get the kinds of thermal energies stored by water gas, and exert the pressures of water gas at anything like 1 atm. But of course, it isn't. The pressure of water gas and the energies of water gas is due to molecular impacts and is many orders of magnitude to small for droplet impacts. Droplet water stores and releases energy as latent heat of vaporization, which makes the thermal math work out in clouds and weather. Another story. But get your head out of your ass on the velocity question and the pressure question. It's not going to happen with droplets. It doesn't happen.

Post by James McGinn
The suspended water droplets in moist air DO EXERT PRESSURE. (Nobody but you disputes this.) <

Not enough to count. The math is above. force = momentum per time. Water droplets (and the water in them) have less mass than air molecules, AND they are moving FAR, FAR more slowly. But pressure IS momentum per time, and PV IS (mostly kinetic energy) so droplets lose out. They do not cause significant pressure.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
But the terminology that is used to describe it is "vapor pressure." Technically I suppose you could refer to it as being "partial." But the convention that has developed, in order to distinguish it from what is conventionally referred to as partial pressure (gas only), is to refer to it as vapor pressure. <<

No. You have misunderstood the convention. "Vapor pressure" refers only to gas pressure. Your weenie droplets just sit there and do nothing, and impact with a kiss. The water molecules in them are stopped in their tracks when compared to air molecules, and single water molecules mixed with air.

Post by James McGinn
Retards like you should avoid science because the collective effects of your dumbness has turned much of science into an endless whirlpool of semantic nonsense.<

Mathematical nonsense it would have to be. This is not language. I'll go toe to toe on the math and I'll beat the crap out of you. Am doing so. You object quantitatively to anything above, and we'll do it again.

[Ser gio]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure.

Semantics.

Not at all. The pressures exerted by gas molecules at 500 m/sec are gigantic compared with the kiss of great suspended drops of water.

Post by James McGinn
You remind me of Sergio. You are too dullwitted to comprehend the subtleties >of language.

It's not a subtlety of language. The pressure exerted by N gas particles on walls of a box of volume V is P = 2/3 [N/V] Ek where Ek = 1/2 mv^2 is the mean RMS kinetic energy of a particle. Water droplets have no kinetic energy compared with N gas molecules each with kinetic energy Ek. Each air molecule is moving faster than the speed of sound, and water droplets are moving a few mm/sec. The mass of the air is far larger, so you do the math to find the energy and momentum. Pressure from droplets is neglectable. But gas pressure at 1 atm = 101,000 N/m^2 = J/m^3. That's water molecules at 100 C, but cannot be droplets.
IF you want to write it PV = 2/3 N Ek
At 273 K (ideal gas) we get kinetic energy/mole = 3 R/2 x 273 = 3400 J/mole
For water a mole is 0.018 kg, so our velocity = sqrt[2E/m] = 2*3400/.018 = 614 m/sec.
Of course water is not an ideal gas and the heat capacity is three times more (it's about 36 J/mole/K not 12.8 as here, but this is within a factor of 3). Your 18 grams of water "vapor" at room temp still needs to be doing hundreds of m/sec to get the kinds of thermal energies stored by water gas, and exert the pressures of water gas at anything like 1 atm. But of course, it isn't. The pressure of water gas and the energies of water gas is due to molecular impacts and is many orders of magnitude to small for droplet impacts. Droplet water stores and releases energy as latent heat of vaporization, which makes the thermal math work out in clouds and weather. Another story. But get your head out of your ass on the velocity question and the pressure question. It's not going to happen with droplets. It doesn't happen.

Post by James McGinn
The suspended water droplets in moist air DO EXERT PRESSURE. (Nobody but you disputes this.) <

Not enough to count. The math is above. force = momentum per time. Water droplets (and the water in them) have less mass than air molecules, AND they are moving FAR, FAR more slowly. But pressure IS momentum per time, and PV IS (mostly kinetic energy) so droplets lose out. They do not cause significant pressure.

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
But the terminology that is used to describe it is "vapor pressure." Technically I suppose you could refer to it as being "partial." But the convention that has developed, in order to distinguish it from what is conventionally referred to as partial pressure (gas only), is to refer to it as vapor pressure. <<

No. You have misunderstood the convention. "Vapor pressure" refers only to gas pressure. Your weenie droplets just sit there and do nothing, and impact with a kiss. The water molecules in them are stopped in their tracks when compared to air molecules, and single water molecules mixed with air.

Post by James McGinn
Retards like you should avoid science because the collective effects of your dumbness has turned much of science into an endless whirlpool of semantic nonsense.<

Mathematical nonsense it would have to be. This is not language. I'll go toe to toe on the math and I'll beat the crap out of you. Am doing so. You object quantitatively to anything above, and we'll do it again.

McGinn is all troll, he does this to insult people, to get attention, if
you notice he posts insults most all of the time, because he does not
know any math, physics, science or weather, or water...

he does not understand any math (he has never posted any)
He does not understand any physics or the language used
he is insincere,
he will not look up stuff on the web
he knows nothing of science, nor weather.
he gets most of his stuff from one website, but then he dosent fully
understand the material, and gets most of it wrong.
ask him what plasma is, he was using that to replace evaporation,

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure.

Semantics.

Not at all.

Completely.

Post by Steve BH
The pressures exerted by gas molecules at 500 m/sec are
gigantic compared with the kiss of great suspended drops of water.

Irrelevant. Reread the thread. Remember, you are claiming that the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous.

Post by Steve BH
No. You have misunderstood the convention. "Vapor pressure" refers only to gas pressure.

This is an idiotic assertion, but if it is true then you've just conceded the argument in that you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that there is any gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn
Right. This is "partial pressure" and not "vapor pressure."

Well, now the ball is in your court. Only gases exert partial pressure.

Semantics.

Not at all.

Completely.

Post by Steve BH
The pressures exerted by gas molecules at 500 m/sec are
gigantic compared with the kiss of great suspended drops of water.

Irrelevant. Reread the thread. Remember, you are claiming that the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous.

Post by Steve BH
No. You have misunderstood the convention. "Vapor pressure" refers only to gas pressure.

This is an idiotic assertion, but if it is true then you've just conceded the argument in that you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that there is any gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
What’s frustrating is we can’t even agree on simple terms. Water vapor pressure is the partial pressure of H2O gas. It can easy be measured at temps below 100 C and has been. But you claim it doesn’t exist. So what are these NIST scientists measuring? It’s not a matter of math so much as you disbelieving in direct measurements. That’s not math, it’s delusion.

Obviously if the word "vapor" is ambiguous we would certainly want to avoid using it in a technical context. Right?
If you are confused about the phase of the moisture in the atmosphere then you might try looking at a phase diagram.
If these simple suggestions don't help you then maybe you should consider finding a new hobby.

We are both looking a P-T (pressure temp) phase diagrams for water, but clearly one of us has no idea what he is seeing.

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html

Those lines that separate phases? Those are called "phase boundaries." In the water PT diagram, the phase boundary between gas and liquid, is a spot where gas and liquid are in equilibrium at that T and P, and in a sealed system, the amounts of each will stay constant. As when you have a sealed Pyrex globe half full of water at 25 C, and you pump out the air. The space above it will contain water gas at a partial pressure of 23.8 torr. That partial pressure of water vapor at 25 C above liquid water is the same even if you do NOT let the air out.

http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure

You did not answer my question about what pressures water boils at, and why. If you understand phase diagrams, this is an easy question. What is water's triple point, and what is happening there?

Come on, this is high school chemistry.

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
Those lines that separate phases? Those are called "phase boundaries."

Right. Now answer the question. Go ahead.

Read upthread if you lost your place.

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
Those lines that separate phases? Those are called "phase boundaries."

Right. Now answer the question. Go ahead.
Read upthread if you lost your place.

Sorry, too many questions up there. You never bother to answer mine. What is the triple point for water? What is the vapor pressure of water at 99 C?

[James McGinn]

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
Those lines that separate phases? Those are called "phase boundaries."

Right. Now answer the question. Go ahead.
Read upthread if you lost your place.

Sorry, too many questions up there. You never bother to answer mine. What is the triple point for water? What is the vapor pressure of water at 99 C?

You got nothing!!!

[Steve BH]

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH

Post by James McGinn

Post by Steve BH
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
Those lines that separate phases? Those are called "phase boundaries."

Right. Now answer the question. Go ahead.
Read upthread if you lost your place.

Sorry, too many questions up there. You never bother to answer mine. What is the triple point for water? What is the vapor pressure of water at 99 C?

You got nothing!!!

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html

In that case you won't mind a helpful quote from the above article on phase diagrams. It's for the uneducated, but you seem to fit the bill.

============== From the article:

Note: This is now a good point for a quick comment about the use of the words "gas" and "vapour". To a large extent you just use the term which feels right. You don't usually talk about "ethanol gas", although you would say "ethanol vapour". Equally, you wouldn't talk about oxygen as being a vapour - you always call it a gas.

There are various guide-lines that you can use if you want to. For example, if the substance is commonly a liquid at or around room temperature, you tend to call what comes away from it a vapour. A slightly wider use would be to call it a vapour if the substance is below its critical point, and a gas if it is above it. Certainly it would be unusual to call anything a vapour if it was above its critical point at room temperature - oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen, for example. These would all be described as gases.

This is absolutely NOT something that is at all worth getting worked up about!

==============



Really, the whole article would serve you well, since you seem to know nothing in it. At some point you're going to tell me that the vapor pressure (gas partial pressure) is not the same as the total pressure above the liquid. Well, it is at the boiling point. Cute, eh? Read. Educate yourself. This is what you would have learned if you had gotten a physics or chem degree.

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[reber G=emc^2]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

More apt to make it fall to positive earth.Air has ions.Think lightning,and fields of static electricty.This proven when my hair stood up in thunder storms.It all fits since magnetisum and electricity are one.Bert

[hanson]

___"reber G=EMC^2"<***@gmail.com> wrote:
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
"This is proven when my hair stood up".Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[James McGinn]

Post by hanson
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
"This is proven when my hair stood up".Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[James McGinn]

Post by hanson
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
"This is proven when my hair stood up".Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[James McGinn]

Post by hanson
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
"This is proven when my hair stood up".Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[James McGinn]

Post by hanson
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid shit." Bert
"This is proven when my hair stood up".Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

[James McGinn]

Post by James McGinn
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195#p122299
Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to
people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body
of air is rising or falling.
What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
It's no different from the standard definition.
The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong
enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's
say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to
buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it
lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising
because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it
became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then
pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a
result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the
downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.
Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that
the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous,
making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign
ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its
impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in
the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a
result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it
as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the
atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy
in order to do so.
I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or
convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms.
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between
high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of
H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important
concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat,
extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry
boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Jim Pennino]

Post by James McGinn
As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model
has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between

There is no such word in the English language as vortice and if there
were plasma in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be glowing, which it
obviously is not.

Post by James McGinn
James McGinn / Insane crackpot