Discussion:
The water cycle, and why clouds don't crash to Earth
(too old to reply)
Arindam Banerjee
2018-03-13 00:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
At 100 deg C and plus, water becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus it will remain that way. When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

This fundamental fact explains a lot - like clouds, mist, rain, etc.

Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to begin with. A random molecule gets ejected by some air molecule, so clothes dry better with wind around. Well, if that monomolecule cannot escape and remain single that way, it will unite with others in a closed space so this is why certain places appear so damp - too many multimolecules of H2O. Whether to consider these as solids floating in air, or liquids floating in air, is another story. I suppose when they are visible to the naked eye they may b4 considered liquid, but when not, as solid objects bouncing around.

Yes, water is a strange and wonderful substance.

The fact that tons of water remain above as clouds, without falling, can be explained in terms of relative density, surface tensions, and aerodynamics.

Relative density - clouds are microdroplets mixed with air and unassociated monomolecules, not yet assimilated. The less the association, higher and lighter the cloud, for it is less dense than the heavy clouds where most of the H2O monomolecules have been assimilated into the microdroplets. So in a given volume, the water, the vapour and the air nearly match the density of the not-cloud heavier air below, so the cloud with water can rest upon same.

Surface tension - this has to do with the cohesive attraction between the water particles - this sort of forms an electric skin which repulses the air molecules below the cloud. One notes that even children draw a cloud with a flat base and a fluffy top. That is becasue the bottoms of thick cloud are quite flat, from the repulsion with the heavier air below, while the tops are not that flat. This is most clearly seen at sunsets - cloud bases are usually horizontal.

Aerodynamics - There is more wind on top of the cloud than below, so there is net pressure upward, upon the cloud. This helps to keep the cloud up

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
James McGinn
2018-03-13 01:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:26:52 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 4:36:22 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > Don't waste your time with silly notions like H2O that magically
> > turns gaseous at ambient temperatures. Fools believe what they
> > are told to believe.
>
>
> That is not my point.

That is my answer. You were told to believe evaporation involves singular molecules of H2O and now you can't stop believing it.

> My point is that at 100 deg C and plus, water
> becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus
> it will remain that way.

Right. Which doesn't exist on this planet.

> When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot
> find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
> AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

OMG. Yes, if we were in outer space or on some other planet that had very little moisture in the atmosphere this would be true. But we are on earth. Let's stick to scenarios that are relevant to the planet we all live on. Okay?

On earth singular H2O molecules are combined with others instantly.

> This fundamental fact

OMG. Your fundamental fact is neither fundamental or factual. It's just the fucking unrestrained imagination of somebody that refuse to accept reality.

> explains a lot - like clouds, mist, rain, etc.

It explains nothing because it doesn't happen on this planet.

> Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to
> begin with.

OMG. This is surreal. I'm surrounded by retards. That is impossible. You aren't paying attention.

> A random molecule gets ejected by some air molecule, so clothes
> dry better with wind around. Well, if that mono-molecule cannot
> escape and remain single

Random molecules don't get ejected, dumb-ass. Hasn't this already been firmly established. How was this obvious fact not apparent to you? Can you explain? No, you can't explain because you are just a dingbat who doesn't know what he thinks/believes from one second to the next.

It can't escape as a singular molecule. Now if you are a retard like Sergio your only conclusion will be that, therefore, evaporation can't happen. But for non-retards there is a very obvious alternative solution: evaporation involves nano-droplets not singular molecules. (Why did I have to explain this to you? How was this alternative not plainly obvious. Can you explain?)

<snip pure nonsense>

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16462
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=egosearch
Arindam Banerjee
2018-03-13 01:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:25:32 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:26:52 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 4:36:22 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > Don't waste your time with silly notions like H2O that magically
> > > turns gaseous at ambient temperatures. Fools believe what they
> > > are told to believe.
> >
> >
> > That is not my point.
>
> That is my answer. You were told to believe evaporation involves singular molecules of H2O and now you can't stop believing it.

True.

> > My point is that at 100 deg C and plus, water
> > becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus
> > it will remain that way.
>
> Right. Which doesn't exist on this planet.

Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.

> > When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot
> > find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
> > AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
>
> OMG. Yes, if we were in outer space or on some other planet that had very little moisture in the atmosphere this would be true.

It is evidently true on planet Earth as well, considering:
- the formation of clouds high above, with monomolecules ascending up as monomocular H2O is lighter than air
- the existence of moisture *above* a steaming kettle, showing that monomolecules have united to form water, and they have risen up and not down. Down would have been the case if they had formed bi or tri molecules immediately after losing the ambient, then as a heavy gas sort of like CO2 rolled down to the kitchen bench to form water instead of going up, or oop.

But we are on earth. Let's stick to scenarios that are relevant to the planet we all live on. Okay?
>
> On earth singular H2O molecules are combined with others instantly.
>
> > This fundamental fact
>
> OMG. Your fundamental fact is neither fundamental or factual. It's just the fucking unrestrained imagination of somebody that refuse to accept reality.
>
> > explains a lot - like clouds, mist, rain, etc.
>
> It explains nothing because it doesn't happen on this planet.
>
> > Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to
> > begin with.
>
> OMG. This is surreal. I'm surrounded by retards. That is impossible. You aren't paying attention.
>
> > A random molecule gets ejected by some air molecule, so clothes
> > dry better with wind around. Well, if that mono-molecule cannot
> > escape and remain single
>
> Random molecules don't get ejected, dumb-ass. Hasn't this already been firmly established. How was this obvious fact not apparent to you? Can you explain? No, you can't explain because you are just a dingbat who doesn't know what he thinks/believes from one second to the next.
>
> It can't escape as a singular molecule. Now if you are a retard like Sergio your only conclusion will be that, therefore, evaporation can't happen. But for non-retards there is a very obvious alternative solution: evaporation involves nano-droplets not singular molecules. (Why did I have to explain this to you? How was this alternative not plainly obvious. Can you explain?)
>
> <snip pure nonsense>
>
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16462
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=egosearch
James McGinn
2018-03-13 03:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:59:39 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
> In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.

It doesn't become true because you believe it or because you state it.

You are no different than somebody who believes in ghosts.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-03-13 08:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:03:57 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:59:39 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
> > In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.
>
> It doesn't become true because you believe it or because you state it.

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of observation and inference, based upon facts and logic. This is the way science used to work, till the einstienians turned it into imagination and theory.

> You are no different than somebody who believes in ghosts.

I don't want to think you are an asshole, or a pretend-to-be-genius, or a fraud, with some mental problems as well.

The fact that you do not give any rational scientific response is saddening; but still, even though you probably are a fake rebel, well, in this degraded scientific world of lies, run by liars, that is a change from the usual routine of the bokachoda benj-ji, the anal banal pnal, the clod Odd, etc.
James McGinn
2018-03-13 09:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of observation and inference, based upon facts and logic. This is the way science used to work, till the einstienians turned it into imagination and theory.

You stated your belief. And now, like all the other liars who can't get their story straight from one day to the next, you claim you did not do what you just did.

You are in no position to lecture anybody about scientific integrity.
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 15:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
KOOK FIGHT!!!
john
2018-03-13 16:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pnal
"KOOK"
Strange noise emanating from this source- never an opinion.

Small bubbles coming up in water would create spherical menisci of water. What happens when those eject into the air? Would they turn inside out? Shred? What?
p***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 16:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John, there is no place for opinions in science... just evidence such as observations and/or experiments to collect data... but you, of course, do not understand this and therefore believe that your own opinions should be accepted willy-nilly...
James McGinn
2018-03-13 16:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:42:34 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> John, there is no place for opinions in science... just evidence such as observations and/or experiments to collect data... but you, of course, do not understand this and therefore believe that your own opinions should be accepted willy-nilly...

Retard without an argument or even a point. Pnal is like the lady in church who never read the bible, doesn't understand the sermon, and and is thick with opinion about the rest of the parishioners. He is only concerned about looking smarter than everybody else.
James McGinn
2018-03-13 16:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:24:37 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Pnal
> "KOOK"
> Strange noise emanating from this source- never an opinion.
>
> Small bubbles coming up in water would create spherical menisci of water. What happens when those eject into the air? Would they turn inside out? Shred? What?

What is in the bubble?
Sergio
2018-03-13 04:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/12/2018 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:25:32 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:26:52 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 4:36:22 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't waste your time with silly notions like H2O that magically
>>>> turns gaseous at ambient temperatures. Fools believe what they
>>>> are told to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not my point.
>>
>> That is my answer. You were told to believe evaporation involves singular molecules of H2O and now you can't stop believing it.
>
> True.

now McGinn wants you to believe his imagination...

>
>>> My point is that at 100 deg C and plus, water
>>> becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus
>>> it will remain that way.
>>
>> Right. Which doesn't exist on this planet.

sure it does, try your stove.

>
> Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
> In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.

true.

>
>>> When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot
>>> find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
>>> AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
>>
>> OMG. Yes, if we were in outer space or on some other planet that had very little moisture in the atmosphere this would be true.
>
> It is evidently true on planet Earth as well, considering:
> - the formation of clouds high above, with monomolecules ascending up as monomocular H2O is lighter than air
> - the existence of moisture *above* a steaming kettle, showing that monomolecules have united to form water, and they have risen up and not down. Down would have been the case if they had formed bi or tri molecules immediately after losing the ambient, then as a heavy gas sort of like CO2 rolled down to the kitchen bench to form water instead of going up, or oop.
>
> But we are on earth. Let's stick to scenarios that are relevant to the planet we all live on. Okay?
>>
>> On earth singular H2O molecules are combined with others instantly.

too simple, James. it is not a chemical reaction, it is slightly sticky
reaction.

and at *what temperature*, and *what pressure*, you always forget those two.

>>
>>> This fundamental fact
>>
>> OMG. Your fundamental fact is neither fundamental or factual. It's just the fucking unrestrained imagination of somebody that refuse to accept reality.

Try harder to accept reality James, your imagination is not working out
at all, it is keeping you sick.

>>
>>> explains a lot - like clouds, mist, rain, etc.
>>
>> It explains nothing because it doesn't happen on this planet.

says the moron called "James McDink, Claudhopper McGinn, or whatever"

>>
>>> Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to
>>> begin with.
>>
>> OMG. This is surreal. I'm surrounded by retards. That is impossible. You aren't paying attention.

James, you already know you are a retard.
you radiate "Retard Waves",
what you say, is retarded,
your youtube's are for retards
your theory is retarted imagination for retards

>>
>>> A random molecule gets ejected by some air molecule, so clothes
>>> dry better with wind around. Well, if that mono-molecule cannot
>>> escape and remain single
>>
>> Random molecules don't get ejected, dumb-ass.

and Retard James McGinn knows this HOW ? did you see it ?

>>Hasn't this already been firmly established. How was this obvious fact not apparent to you? Can you explain? No, you can't explain because you are just a dingbat who doesn't know what he thinks/believes from one second to the next.

ah, such language, poor *Retard James McGinn* did'nt get his kibbles
tonight...

>>
>> It can't escape as a singular molecule.

James, sure it can, it takes less energy that way, but you dont know
what energy is. Prove that you do.


>> Now if you are a retard like Sergio your only conclusion will be that, therefore, evaporation can't happen. But for non-retards there is a very obvious alternative solution: evaporation involves nano-droplets not singular molecules. (Why did I have to explain this to you? How was this alternative not plainly obvious. Can you explain?)

that is even more retarded, James the Retard says, "My nano butt paste
stops evaporation"




>>
>> <snip pure nonsense>
>>
>> James McGoon / Slobbering Pornadoes
>> http://www.thunderporn.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtop.php?f=1&t=162
>> http://www.pornbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/seach.php?sarch_id=egsearch
>
James McGinn
2018-03-13 04:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:28:33 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/12/2018 8:59 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:25:32 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:26:52 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 4:36:22 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Don't waste your time with silly notions like H2O that magically
> >>>> turns gaseous at ambient temperatures. Fools believe what they
> >>>> are told to believe.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is not my point.
> >>
> >> That is my answer. You were told to believe evaporation involves singular molecules of H2O and now you can't stop believing it.
> >
> > True.
>
> now McGinn wants you to believe his imagination...
>
> >
> >>> My point is that at 100 deg C and plus, water
> >>> becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus
> >>> it will remain that way.
> >>
> >> Right. Which doesn't exist on this planet.
>
> sure it does, try your stove.
>
> >
> > Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
> > In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.
>
> true.
>
> >
> >>> When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot
> >>> find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
> >>> AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
> >>
> >> OMG. Yes, if we were in outer space or on some other planet that had very little moisture in the atmosphere this would be true.
> >
> > It is evidently true on planet Earth as well, considering:
> > - the formation of clouds high above, with monomolecules ascending up as monomocular H2O is lighter than air
> > - the existence of moisture *above* a steaming kettle, showing that monomolecules have united to form water, and they have risen up and not down. Down would have been the case if they had formed bi or tri molecules immediately after losing the ambient, then as a heavy gas sort of like CO2 rolled down to the kitchen bench to form water instead of going up, or oop.
> >
> > But we are on earth. Let's stick to scenarios that are relevant to the planet we all live on. Okay?
> >>
> >> On earth singular H2O molecules are combined with others instantly.
>
> too simple, James. it is not a chemical reaction, it is slightly sticky
> reaction.
>
> and at *what temperature*, and *what pressure*, you always forget those two.
>
> >>
> >>> This fundamental fact
> >>
> >> OMG. Your fundamental fact is neither fundamental or factual. It's just the fucking unrestrained imagination of somebody that refuse to accept reality.
>
> Try harder to accept reality James, your imagination is not working out
> at all, it is keeping you sick.
>
> >>
> >>> explains a lot - like clouds, mist, rain, etc.
> >>
> >> It explains nothing because it doesn't happen on this planet.
>
> says the moron called "James McDink, Claudhopper McGinn, or whatever"
>
> >>
> >>> Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to
> >>> begin with.
> >>
> >> OMG. This is surreal. I'm surrounded by retards. That is impossible. You aren't paying attention.
>
> James, you already know you are a retard.
> you radiate "Retard Waves",
> what you say, is retarded,
> your youtube's are for retards
> your theory is retarted imagination for retards
>
> >>
> >>> A random molecule gets ejected by some air molecule, so clothes
> >>> dry better with wind around. Well, if that mono-molecule cannot
> >>> escape and remain single
> >>
> >> Random molecules don't get ejected, dumb-ass.
>
> and Retard James McGinn knows this HOW ? did you see it ?
>
> >>Hasn't this already been firmly established. How was this obvious fact not apparent to you? Can you explain? No, you can't explain because you are just a dingbat who doesn't know what he thinks/believes from one second to the next.
>
> ah, such language, poor *Retard James McGinn* did'nt get his kibbles
> tonight...
>
> >>
> >> It can't escape as a singular molecule.
>
> James, sure it can, it takes less energy that way, but you dont know
> what energy is. Prove that you do.
>
>
> >> Now if you are a retard like Sergio your only conclusion will be that, therefore, evaporation can't happen. But for non-retards there is a very obvious alternative solution: evaporation involves nano-droplets not singular molecules. (Why did I have to explain this to you? How was this alternative not plainly obvious. Can you explain?)
>
> that is even more retarded, James the Retard says, "My nano butt paste
> stops evaporation"
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> <snip pure nonsense>
> >>
> >> James McGoon / Slobbering Pornadoes
> >> http://www.thunderporn.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtop.php?f=1&t=162
> >> http://www.pornbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/seach.php?sarch_id=egsearch
> >

The head dingbat chimes in.
john
2018-03-13 16:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sergio
"
sure it does, try your stove.

>
> Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
> In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.
"
Hahaha.
Sergio! An 'ambient stove'. Hope my new wood burning stove doesn't just amble off
Sergio
2018-03-13 18:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/13/2018 11:18 AM, john wrote:
> Sergio
> "
> sure it does, try your stove.
>
>>
>> Ambients exist below 50 deg C on this planet.
>> In such ambients, monomolecular H2O can and do exist until they find mates.
> "
> Hahaha.
> Sergio! An 'ambient stove'. Hope my new wood burning stove doesn't just amble off
>

fill it up with Mono Water, it will stay put!

(Mono Water => monomolecular Dihydrogen Monoxide)


http://dhmo.org/
James McGinn
2018-03-13 05:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:44:45 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:


> Aerodynamics - There is more wind on top of the cloud than below, so there is net pressure upward, upon the cloud. This helps to keep the cloud up

So, you see clouds as coherent entities that can be suspended from above?

Childish.
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Arindam Banerjee <***@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> At 100 deg C and plus, water becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus it will remain that way. When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

You could make a handshake with James McGinn. Neither of you have
a clue about physical chemistry, what allows you to generate any
number of nonsensical statements, limited only by writing
effort.

BTW, even temperature below 100 deg C at normal pressure are not
enough for the oversaturated air to cause joining 2 water
molecules.

They need macroscopic or ionised condensation centres to absorb
the released energy and bind the molecules to itself. This
phenomena was used e.g. in quantum physics in early 20th century
to detect fast moving charged particles.

--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
James McGinn
2018-03-13 06:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 11:11:48 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <***@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > At 100 deg C and plus, water becomes mono-molecular, definitely. In an ambient of 100 deg C plus it will remain that way. When released in the open air, it will remain monomolecular if it cannot find another monomolecule or multimolecule IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
>
> You could make a handshake with James McGinn. Neither of you have
> a clue about physical chemistry, what allows you to generate any
> number of nonsensical statements, limited only by writing
> effort.

I'm an expert on water, you fucking moron. You are a vague nitwit.


> BTW, even temperature below 100 deg C at normal pressure are not
> enough for the oversaturated air to cause joining 2 water
> molecules.

Absurd speculation.

> They need macroscopic or ionised condensation centres to absorb
> the released energy and bind the molecules to itself. This
> phenomena was used e.g. in quantum physics in early 20th century
> to detect fast moving charged particles.

Absurd speculation. You are clueless.
James McGinn
2018-03-13 10:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Evaporation at the ambient is essentially a monomolecular process to begin with.

You are so full of crap. You've never observed evaporation, you lying SOB.

Nobody in the history of mankind has observed such.
Loading...