2017-11-23 18:07:27 UTC
Postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm
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