Discussion:
You Can't Understand Tornadoes Unless You First Understand The Surface Tension of H2O (James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes)
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2017-11-23 17:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376

CharlesChandler wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:
For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
won't; that's not how surface tension even works.

Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
different, if it existed at all.

We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
he's probably going to lose that one. ;)


All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.

You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.

So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-11-24 20:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:51:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am
>
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
>
> CharlesChandler wrote:
> MosaicDave wrote:
> For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
> have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
> will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
> won't; that's not how surface tension even works.
>
> Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
> droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
> within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
> just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
> about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
> different, if it existed at all.
>
> We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
> doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
> missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
> for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
> for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
> carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
> vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
> concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
> he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
>
>
> All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
> liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
> different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
> other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
> the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
> tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
> magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
> literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
> most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
> literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
> phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.
>
> You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
> understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
> distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
> And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
> until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
> moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
> tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
> you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
> surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
> the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
> comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
> categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
> assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
> and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.
>
> So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
> nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
> understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
> the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.
>
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-11-25 16:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:11 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:51:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> > Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am
> >
> > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
> >
> > CharlesChandler wrote:
> > MosaicDave wrote:
> > For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
> > have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
> > will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
> > won't; that's not how surface tension even works.
> >
> > Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
> > droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
> > within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
> > just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
> > about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
> > different, if it existed at all.
> >
> > We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
> > doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
> > missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
> > for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
> > for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
> > carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
> > vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
> > concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
> > he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
> >
> >
> > All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
> > liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
> > different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
> > other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
> > the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
> > tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
> > magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
> > literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
> > most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
> > literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
> > phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.
> >
> > You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
> > understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
> > distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
> > And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
> > until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
> > moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
> > tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
> > you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
> > surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
> > the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
> > comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
> > categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
> > assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
> > and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.
> >
> > So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
> > nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
> > understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
> > the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.
> >
> > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-11-28 14:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:11 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:51:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> > > Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am
> > >
> > > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
> > >
> > > CharlesChandler wrote:
> > > MosaicDave wrote:
> > > For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
> > > have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
> > > will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
> > > won't; that's not how surface tension even works.
> > >
> > > Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
> > > droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
> > > within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
> > > just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
> > > about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
> > > different, if it existed at all.
> > >
> > > We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
> > > doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
> > > missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
> > > for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
> > > for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
> > > carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
> > > vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
> > > concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
> > > he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
> > > liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
> > > different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
> > > other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
> > > the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
> > > tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
> > > magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
> > > literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
> > > most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
> > > literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
> > > phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.
> > >
> > > You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
> > > understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
> > > distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
> > > And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
> > > until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
> > > moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
> > > tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
> > > you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
> > > surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
> > > the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
> > > comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
> > > categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
> > > assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
> > > and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.
> > >
> > > So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
> > > nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
> > > understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
> > > the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.
> > >
> > > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2017-11-28 14:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:20:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:11 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:51:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> > > > Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
> > > >
> > > > CharlesChandler wrote:
> > > > MosaicDave wrote:
> > > > For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
> > > > have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
> > > > will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
> > > > won't; that's not how surface tension even works.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
> > > > droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
> > > > within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
> > > > just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
> > > > about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
> > > > different, if it existed at all.
> > > >
> > > > We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
> > > > doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
> > > > missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
> > > > for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
> > > > for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
> > > > carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
> > > > vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
> > > > concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
> > > > he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
> > > > liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
> > > > different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
> > > > other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
> > > > the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
> > > > tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
> > > > magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
> > > > literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
> > > > most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
> > > > literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
> > > > phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.
> > > >
> > > > You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
> > > > understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
> > > > distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
> > > > And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
> > > > until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
> > > > moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
> > > > tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
> > > > you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
> > > > surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
> > > > the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
> > > > comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
> > > > categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
> > > > assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
> > > > and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.
> > > >
> > > > So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
> > > > nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
> > > > understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
> > > > the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
2018-03-12 23:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:20:43 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:20:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:11 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:51:58 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> > > > > Postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:08 am
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
> > > > >
> > > > > CharlesChandler wrote:
> > > > > MosaicDave wrote:
> > > > > For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole
> > > > > have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop
> > > > > will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol
> > > > > won't; that's not how surface tension even works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of
> > > > > droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies
> > > > > within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which
> > > > > just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking
> > > > > about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something
> > > > > different, if it existed at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just
> > > > > doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they
> > > > > missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard
> > > > > for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy
> > > > > for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles
> > > > > carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his
> > > > > vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As
> > > > > concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension,
> > > > > he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All liquids have a surface (so do all solids and all plasmas). And so, all
> > > > > liquids can be said to have surface tension. But the surface tension of water is
> > > > > different. It is categorically distinct from that of other liquids. With most
> > > > > other liquids the magnitude of the tensional forces along the surface are about
> > > > > the same as those below the surface. In contrast, with H2O there are almost zero
> > > > > tensional forces below the surface but along the surface of liquid H2O the
> > > > > magnitude of the tensional forces is very high, in fact the surface of H2O is
> > > > > literally a solid. (Of course we don’t notice the high surface tension of H2O in
> > > > > most instances because the hard layer is so incredibly thin.) If you turn to the
> > > > > literature on the physics of H2O expecting to get an explanation of this
> > > > > phenomena, well, you would be out of luck.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you
> > > > > understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly
> > > > > distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
> > > > > And you can’t understand how the molecular composition of a sheath is distinct
> > > > > until you understand how the surface tension of H2O can be maximized (under
> > > > > moist/dry wind shear conditions). And you can’t understand how the surface
> > > > > tension of H2O can be maximized (under moist/dry wind shear conditions) until
> > > > > you understand how surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from the
> > > > > surface tension of any other liquid. And you won’t have the motivation to make
> > > > > the effort to deal with the difficulties that are necessary to get a
> > > > > comprehensive understanding of how and why the surface tension of H2O is
> > > > > categorically distinct from the surface tension of any other liquid if you
> > > > > assume that conventional notions about surface tension are valid, comprehensive,
> > > > > and generally well considered. Because they aren’t.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the biggest problem for most people when it comes to understanding the
> > > > > nature of storms and the nature of atmospheric flow is that they think they
> > > > > understand certain things that they don’t understand and/or they are trusting of
> > > > > the conventional wisdom of certain things and that conventional wisdom is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Loading...