Amazon deletes James McGinn's Troll Book after bad complaints

[Sergio]

Top Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 starsinsane rambling
By K. Parker on July 3, 2014

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
5 Comments 14 people found this helpful.



1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
By hunter on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing.
1 Comment 9 people found this helpful.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/06/2016 v 21:02 Sergio napsal(a):

It must have been Amazon conspiracy !! ( sarcasm :-) )

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Poutnik]

Dne 20/06/2016 v 22:20 Poutnik napsal(a):

>
> It must have been Amazon conspiracy !! ( sarcasm :-) )
>

P.S.:
The Usenet is like a big mother,
inviting and accepting all people
who were rejected everywhere else.

[Sergio]

On 6/20/2016 3:23 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/06/2016 v 22:20 Poutnik napsal(a):
>>
>> It must have been Amazon conspiracy !! ( sarcasm :-) )
>>
> P.S.:
> The Usenet is like a big mother,
> inviting and accepting all people
> who were rejected everywhere else.
>

... and these people get to write a note on a wall.
then others write responses on the same wall

soon the wall is covered in messages/notes

in summery, what do they do ?



[wall = newsgroup]

[noTthaTguY]

I am not the FAther of all hurricaneS;
I have ne'er been to the South polar vorteX

[osbo...@gmail.com]

they didn't delete it. I purchased both his books.

[Sergio]

On 7/24/2016 9:19 AM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> they didn't delete it. I purchased both his books.
>

Hi MSD!


there has only been 2 sales, one by K. Parker, on sale for $1.23 and
here is her review;

Top Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars *insane rambling*

By K. Parker on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.

The other person to download the book for free, hunter, during a special
wrote;

1.0 out of 5 stars *Waste of time, a non-funny joke*

By hunter on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses

metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing.

MSD also bought the book, and rest of the reviews are by MSD who is
Cladius Dink, who is James Mcginn.


.........and they did delete it.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

>Sergio

> .........and they did delete it.

Appreciate the reply. I did check again today when I made the claim. It still was listed. The MSD user is my girl friend's account, that we share. I'm am a different user. I saw Jame's post about his book on the Thunderbots dot info forum. One thing about reading his theory, is another theorist I like to read; Charles Chandler, wrote me once, saying he like to read other theory's even ones he doesn't agree with, because there are usually specific facts that get explained differently than he had previously considered. So between his (James) books and these discussions, I am getting a greater exposure to all the controversy than I have ever considered prior.

Thanks
Frank O.

[James McGinn]

I like his website.

Chandler seems committed to the notion that electricity plays a central role in
vortices/storms/tornadoes/hurricanes/etc. I think his belief is so deep that
it blinds him to the fact that his theory is, in actuality, just a notion.

In contrast my own theory involves plasma, which also involves a relatively
greater role for electricity in that electrons are instrumental as a component
of earth's atmospheric gases/plasmas. (And they are constantly inflowing
through the solar wind.)

My thinking also incorporates fluid dynamics, which is important if we want to
actually explain phenomena like tornadoes. Chandler seems to not grasp this.

Fluid dynamic aspects of tornadoes are difficult to discuss/explain. Moreover,
in this subject the complexity of properly incorporating fluid dynamics is
further complicated by the fact that we are dealing with H2O. Most all of
science is confused about H2O, so explaining anything in this discipline
involves first untangling a lot of well entrenched misthinking, most all of
which pivots off some kind of plainly ludicrous assumption about H2O.

For example, as I recall Chandler believes in convection and latent heat (of
H2O) and the general "heat engine" or "hot tower" notions of standard
meteorology. If he had a proper understanding of H2O he would not fallen for
these plainly erroneous notions.

It's great though that Chandler seems to at least have no trouble realizing
what complete dufi are meteorologists on any of this.

Too bad he doesn't speak up more, because I think he's got a lot to offer. And
I recommend to everybody to go to his website and spend hour or two going
through the whole thing: Try doing a search on Charles Chandler Website Tornado

Water's role in storms is as an essential component of the conduit--vortices--
that delivers the low pressure energy of storms from a jet stream. And this
capability has to do with water's surface tension properties being maximized
under conditions that maximize surface area, as occurs on wind shear boundaries
(this part is complicated [*], I apologize for the brevity here). Water's role
in storms has nothing at all to do with either convection or latent heat.
These notions are but superstition. It is H2O's plasmodic qualities (surface
tension) that explain its role in storms.

(BTW, low pressure energy of storms travels upstream, exactly the opposite of
the direction of air flow.)

([*] If you were to take a microscopic snapshot of the wall of an atmospheric
vortice you would see billions of polymers of H2O, like threads of ice,
spinning rapidly end over end.)

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[Sergio]

call it what it is, science fiction.

Thunderbots is phake sciency made-up stuff, a few ties to current
reality, but they go full-on imagination, backwash from the Ascended
Masters crowd.

Charles Chandler stopped posting in 2012, few were reading his
disconnected from reality ideas, guess he got a job.

and there is no controversy.

Spend you time fishing in a boat drinking beer or something. Reading
McGinn is fking nutz, and you know that.

[James McGinn]

Uh, so, Sergio. Let me ask you a question. What is the boiling temperature of H2O? Do you really believe it is possible for H2O to be a gas below its boiling temperature?

Do you believe in Bigfoot too?

[Sergio]

Hey James,

Is "Frank O". another one of your "internet names" ?

[noTthaTguY]

it does not maximize the area of the surface, unless
you are referring to a fractal property of HOH;
the surface is minimized under differential constraints,
wind e.g

[Sergio]

proof of Water Vapor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifB6sd0SZj0

[noTthaTguY]

got no audio, but I guess I see, what he's doing,
with the faint ring of vapor (obviously
with some condensate also appearing, hence, smoke

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifB6sd0SZj0

[osbo...@gmail.com]

>>James

>>
>>(BTW, low pressure energy of storms >>travels upstream, exactly the >>opposite of
>>the direction of air flow.)

In Charles C's Tornadoe abstract he uses a picture of a water spout to show this, I think.

[Sergio]

On 7/25/2016 11:58 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not a James alias. I'm a process controls tech in kansas. I was
> a sonar tech in the USN on submerines, so I really enjoyed the sound
> physics and all the applied science in that job. I work in
> Water/sewer treatment. So I'm still on the recieving end of applied
> science and twitchy(some times it almost works) engineering, which is
> a blast.
>

cool, process control is great field, can get nice and complicated
quickly. I did that test for sonar in the Navy but did not score that
high, neat test though still remember it. Sound physics is very
interesting and complex, I picked up a book on Sonar (garage sale) and
the guy had a test pond with lots of tests and data, and how the surface
would reflect sound waves, how to design the test, and how/why devices
were constructed in a particular way.

twitchy engineering, know that in electronics, lot of older things made
that way, like the CD-700 series Giger counters, the electronics is a
mess, good for 1954. and some things you can only optomize so much.


water treatment Germs and microbes - there is an article in the WSJ
today on how Hospitals are using more copper in their facilities as
surfaces to kill MERS and a lot of other bad germs. Like using on
tables, doorknobs, where ever a person would touch. most hospitals have
MERS now, many use high levels of UV in rooms at night.

[James McGinn]

Great pic, ain't it? Lots of great pics on his site.

I don't know about CC's thinking other than his Website.

[reber g=emc^2]

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 2:36:20 PM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

Lot of friction created by storms thus lightning is a given. Florida is proof of that.Jupiter fits as its the planet with continual storms.Venus could be #2 TreBert

[noTthaTguY]

ah, so

[jmc...@womply.com]

No response.

Why do you think it is meteorologists aren't helping you make your case?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 1:34 PM, jmc...@womply.com wrote:

Sigh. OK, another five seconds needed to killfile this alias, after I'm
done with this post.

> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 5:42:16 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

>>
>> Uh, so, Sergio. Let me ask you a question. What is the boiling temperature of H2O?
>> Do you really believe it is possible for H2O to be a gas below its boiling temperature?

Yes. OF COURSE. Why would anyone NOT believe that?

>>
>> Do you believe in Bigfoot too?
>
> No response.
>
> Why do you think it is meteorologists aren't helping you make your case?
>

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Sergio]

at what pressure ?

>>Do you really believe it is possible for H2O
>> to be a gas below its boiling temperature?

How does your shirt dry on a clothes line ?
where does the water go ?
It is below boiling temperature.

and get another shtick, you 1/2 trick pony,
Try going fishing while drinking beer, something.
Ask the next person you see to put a net over you.
play Pokey man Go,

>>
>> Do you believe in Bigfoot too?
>
> No response.

I have you Plonked, because your message is so..... simple.

>
> Why do you think it is meteorologists aren't helping you make your
> case?

you should *make the case* for your imagination in your troll book, no
one else will, or can. you should rewrite it, and remove all the
punctuation marks. Call it a vowel movement.

[James McGinn]

Tell us more.

[B Gates]

Sergio space is like a thermos bottle so no heat ever reaches the earth!

That is a given!

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:18:04 AM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> water treatment Germs and microbes - there is an article in the WSJ
> today on how Hospitals are using more copper in their facilities as
> surfaces to kill MERS and a lot of other bad germs. Like using on
> tables, doorknobs, where ever a person would touch.

From WSJ article;
"Copper... has antimicrobial properties that kill 99.9% of bacteria on its surface within two hours"

Wow! Who knew.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-5, reber g=emc^2 wrote:

> Lot of friction created by storms thus lightning is a given. Florida is proof of that.Jupiter fits as its the planet with continual storms.Venus could be #2 TreBert

What about Sprites and Red Sprites as other electrical sources feeding Thunderstorms? Not only air friction.
I thought one of James questions of why sudden powerful tornadoes occur, Was a good one. It makes you wonder, what the jump start phenomena is, that causes it. Warm air convection seems slow motion compared to the quickness large destructive tornadoes occur, forming with in minutes.
You may not agree with his ideas. But what about the observation, that it lacks a confirmed explanation? Just curious if there is any entry level agreement to the discussion.

[B Gates]

guess that copper arthritis bracelet is doing its job!

[noTthaTguY]

thou goest with the la-dee-da, misteR mCginn;
entry level is relative versus absolute humidity,
as well as supersaturated, just before a storm

[James McGinn]

So, uh, you admit you can't dispute it, right?

[James McGinn]

There are four reasons anybody would believe in the notion that convection causes (or is involved in) storms. 1) Ignorance 2) Gullibility 3) Stupidity and 4) Complacency.

There are no scientific or empirical reason to believe such nonsense.

[noTthaTguY]

two bongs don't make a ... pyramid?

[brandon...@gmail.com]

no, wait; capital lamda!

> two bongs don't make a ... pyramid?

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:26:19 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> Great pic, ain't it? Lots of great pics on his site.
>

I do appreciate Charles's conservative approach to his science, even as he stretches the limits of accepted science.
In some other post in this group, there was wishful expressions that an abstract have graphs, pictures, math, to be a format people are use to seeing. It was exciting they gave me a new notion of what good science is about. I think it has to have a good presentation format, that everybody agrees on.
So Charles's paper struck me as meeting those criteria of a polished format. He is a software integrator, I believe.
I wanted to see what you thought about his thoughts on the failure of super-cell simulations using the standard concepts;
His last update was aug. 2015...

Current research focuses on the thermodynamic factors. The most thorough attempts at modeling the dynamics of thunderstorms have taken the following factors into account:
differences in air temperature, pressure, and humidity at various altitudes in the troposphere before the storm begins,
heat sources and sinks, including the Sun heating the surface of the Earth, as well as heat exchanges due to the evaporation and condensation of water molecules,

the motion of parcels of air due to changes in density, given the force of gravity, and given the density of neighboring parcels,

where and when the water molecules will change state within the cloud,
the effect of gravity on liquid and solid water particles,

and the aerodynamic effect that liquid and solid water particles will have on the parcels of air through which they fall.

Unfortunately, physics simulations incorporating just these factors fail to resolve into supercells. And while probabilistic modeling based on thermodynamics can predict the emergence of supercells far better than chance, researchers are baffled by the cases in which all of the known factors were present, and yet no supercell formed.

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php?text=full&images=true&units=imperial

Thanks
Frank

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:25:27 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:

> On 7/24/2016 4:36 PM, Osbornfg, wrote:
> >> Sergio .........and they did delete it.
> >

One thing about reading his
> > theory, is another theorist I like to read; Charles Chandler, wrote
> > me once, saying he like to read other theory's even ones he doesn't
> > agree with, because there are usually specific facts that get
> > explained differently than he had previously considered. So between
> > his (James) books and these discussions, I am getting a greater
> > exposure to all the controversy than I have ever considered prior.
> >
> > Thanks Frank O.
> >
>
> call it what it is, science fiction.
>
> Thunderbots is phake sciency made-up stuff, a few ties to current
> reality, but they go full-on imagination, backwash from the Ascended
> Masters crowd.

I appreciate your opinion.
But if science has only the cookie cutter theorist and researchers, then does it stop being science?
Are those minds on the frontier or outside the consensus mind set needed?
Will there ever be another revolution in science otherwise?

> Charles Chandler stopped posting in 2012, few were reading his
> disconnected from reality ideas, guess he got a job.

Aug 2015 is listed as the last update on his paper.

But again, he's not being an armchair critic, he is producing new ideas, its must to be a motivator for others. He has another site, where he helps others develop their theories. It struck me, as another property of good science.

> and there is no controversy.

Then there is no science, based on my last criteria. IMO

> Spend you time fishing in a boat drinking beer or something. Reading
> McGinn is fking nutz, and you know that.

How about making interactive post here, getting excited about weather theory?

Yes he is, but its a pitfall of being an imaginative and impassioned innovator.
For good or bad, it inspires a desire to know more, to think of accepted things with critical evaluation. Is that really offensive to science?

I think by yours and others reactions in this group, indicates, you all are still excited to re-evaluate your science. Your poking your sharp sticks, to see if you can stoke the catalyst (James, the lab rat) for your own enrichment. In that light, this is a fun bunch. at lest till its my turn with no banana pellet, just shocks...

[James McGinn]

Chandler will never make progress. He is too gullible. He will never escape the influence of meteorological propaganda.

[Sergio]

On 7/29/2016 8:30 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:25:27 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
>> On 7/24/2016 4:36 PM, Osbornfg, wrote:
>>>> Sergio .........and they did delete it.
>>>
> One thing about reading his
>>> theory, is another theorist I like to read; Charles Chandler,
>>> wrote me once, saying he like to read other theory's even ones he
>>> doesn't agree with, because there are usually specific facts that
>>> get explained differently than he had previously considered. So
>>> between his (James) books and these discussions, I am getting a
>>> greater exposure to all the controversy than I have ever
>>> considered prior.
>>>
>>> Thanks Frank O.
>>>
>>
>> call it what it is, science fiction.
>>
>> Thunderbots is phake sciency made-up stuff, a few ties to current
>> reality, but they go full-on imagination, backwash from the
>> Ascended Masters crowd.
>
> I appreciate your opinion.

all anyone could call it is made up science fiction.

> But if science has only the cookie cutter

you used "if" so you are conjecturing.

> theorist and researchers, then does it stop being science?

your statement is malformed.

> Are those minds on the frontier or outside the consensus mind set
> needed?

you are implying ones who do not know any science, like McGinn, are
needed, and that is quite wrong.

> Will there ever be another revolution in science otherwise?

you generalize. McGinn is a troll.

>
>> Charles Chandler stopped posting in 2012, few were reading his
>> disconnected from reality ideas, guess he got a job.
>
> Aug 2015 is listed as the last update on his paper.

that is a year ago, when he went on vacation, he is looney toonie too.

>
> But again, he's not being an armchair critic, he is producing new
> ideas, its must to be a motivator for others. He has another site,
> where he helps others develop their theories. It struck me, as
> another property of good science.

surface stuff, only. no equations at all. Imagination.
New ideas to him and you, old stale stuff to everyone else.
no real science unless he publishes and uses math.

>
>
>> and there is no controversy.
>
> Then there is no science, based on my last criteria. IMO

your opinion, what is your criteria ? mysterious evil meterologiest hide
fake stuff to save their lousy jobs ?

>
>
>> Spend you time fishing in a boat drinking beer or something.
>> Reading McGinn is fking nutz, and you know that.
>
> How about making interactive post here, getting excited about weather
> theory?

post in his blog.

this is sci.physics

go post in alt.fictional.weather

>
> Yes he is, but its a pitfall of being an imaginative and impassioned
> innovator. For good or bad, it inspires a desire to know more, to
> think of accepted things with critical evaluation. Is that really
> offensive to science?

why follow a science zombie in circles ?? what has he innovated ?

one dosent make stuff up and expect it to be called science, that is
what stoners do.

>
> I think by yours and others reactions in this group, indicates, you
> all are still excited to re-evaluate your science. Your poking your
> sharp sticks, to see if you can stoke the catalyst (James, the lab
> rat) for your own enrichment. In that light, this is a fun bunch. at
> lest till its my turn with no banana pellet, just shocks...
>

learn some math first. you can line up all the words you want, but you
need the math to back it up.

James is a troll, that is all. James has never presented anything of
substance, just vague wishy washy wacko imagination.

you treating it like it has value demonstrates you are as lost as James
is when it comes to real science.

if you want to learn, go read some books and study up, there is a vast
body of well proven knowledge out there already.

Throw out those books by James Mcginn, it is by a sick mind.

[Sergio]

go read some books on the subject first,
you are starting at too low a level for this group.
we cant educate you here
James McGinn is entirely made up fiction.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:25:27 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> > On 7/24/2016 4:36 PM, Osbornfg, wrote:
> > >> Sergio .........and they did delete it.
> > >
> One thing about reading his
> > > theory, is another theorist I like to read; Charles Chandler, wrote
> > > me once, saying he like to read other theory's even ones he doesn't
> > > agree with, because there are usually specific facts that get
> > > explained differently than he had previously considered. So between
> > > his (James) books and these discussions, I am getting a greater
> > > exposure to all the controversy than I have ever considered prior.
> > >
> > > Thanks Frank O.
> > >
> >
> > call it what it is, science fiction.
> >
> > Thunderbots is phake sciency made-up stuff, a few ties to current
> > reality, but they go full-on imagination, backwash from the Ascended
> > Masters crowd.
>
> I appreciate your opinion.

Frank, I don't think you understand the mentality you are dealing with here. Sergio and the loose collection of oddballs are not scientist. They are science groupies. Groupies don't discuss things. They are just dumb. All these imbeciles can do is post links to websites. You follow their link and there is nothing there. It's like dealing with people that are sure they can see ghosts, or children with fair tales.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-5, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
> > Lot of friction created by storms thus lightning is a given. Florida is proof of that.Jupiter fits as its the planet with continual storms.Venus could be #2 TreBert
>
> What about Sprites and Red Sprites as other electrical sources feeding Thunderstorms? Not only air friction.

Friction doesn't cause lightning. That's another popularistic myth. It's caused by constant influx of electric energy from the solar wind.

http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/topics/2016/0722.shtml

> I thought one of James questions of why sudden powerful tornadoes occur, Was a good one.

It's such an obvious issue.

It makes you wonder, what the jump start phenomena is, that causes it. Warm air convection seems slow motion

It is slow. Low energy. Convection is obvious BS. Obviously moist air is heavier than dry air, so it fails even on this most fundamental level.

compared to the quickness large destructive tornadoes occur, forming with in minutes.

Obvious to anybody with half a brain.

> You may not agree with his ideas. But what about the observation, that it lacks a confirmed explanation? Just curious if there is any entry level agreement to the discussion.

You might as well explain auto mechanics to your dog as explain anything to Sergio. Sergio won't understand any better than your dog, but at least your dog won't hate you for trying.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:38:07 PM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:26:19 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > Great pic, ain't it? Lots of great pics on his site.
> >
> I do appreciate Charles's conservative approach to his science, even as he stretches the limits of accepted science.
> In some other post in this group, there was wishful expressions that an abstract have graphs, pictures, math, to be a format people are use to seeing. It was exciting they gave me a new notion of what good science is about. I think it has to have a good presentation format, that everybody agrees on.
> So Charles's paper struck me as meeting those criteria of a polished format. He is a software integrator, I believe.
> I wanted to see what you thought about his thoughts on the failure of super-cell simulations using the standard concepts;
> His last update was aug. 2015...

Charles and I are working in two completely different paradigms. He holds some fundamental truths (about convection and latent heat) that I consider to be plainly silly. (And he lacks the breakthroughs in water than I made.)

>
> Current research focuses on the thermodynamic factors.

Get the fluid dynamics right before you worry too much about the thermodynamics.

The most thorough attempts at modeling the dynamics of thunderstorms have taken the following factors into account:
> differences in air temperature, pressure, and humidity at various altitudes in the troposphere before the storm begins,
> heat sources and sinks, including the Sun heating the surface of the Earth, as well as heat exchanges due to the evaporation and condensation of water molecules,
>
> the motion of parcels of air due to changes in density, given the force of gravity, and given the density of neighboring parcels,
>
> where and when the water molecules will change state within the cloud,

Change state? Surely you realize steam (monomolecular H2O) is impossible. Right? So what "state" change are you talking about?

> the effect of gravity on liquid and solid water particles,
>
> and the aerodynamic effect that liquid and solid water particles will have on the parcels of air through which they fall.

It's the aerodynamic effect of plasma that is more important.
Fluid dynamics, chaos theory, complexity theory -- missing.

>
> Unfortunately, physics simulations incorporating just these factors fail to resolve into supercells. And while probabilistic modeling based on thermodynamics can predict the emergence of supercells far better than chance, researchers are baffled by the cases in which all of the known factors were present, and yet no supercell formed.

When you have the origin of the energy backasswards its no surprise the model doesn't resolve.

Keep in mind, meteorologists are birdbrains that can't even get their fundamendtals straight.


>
> http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php?text=full&images=true&units=imperial

If your fundamental assumptions are wrong/mistaken that would explain how the models of supercells are irresolvable. Get the fundamentals right first. You at least have to know where the energy comes from and how it is delivered. If you can't get the small (simple) stuff straight don't be surprised when the model won't resolve.

The energy of storms starts out as differential pressure. Jet streams extract and store this energy in the form of fast moving air. Storms--by way of vortices, sometimes stretching thousands of miles, deliver this energy (in the form of low pressure, suction) at certain locations. Unless you understand the dynamics of how this occurs and, most importantly, unless you possess an accurate understanding of H2O's role therein you are just wasting your time--spinning wheels. And, unfortunately, that is what I see happening with Chandler.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

What appears to be cloud-free air (virtually) always contains sub microscopic drops, but as evaporation exceeds condensation, the drops do not survive long after an initial chance clumping of molecules.
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html

I am wondering of the form of water we are considering. Which sounds like the form of water your working with, sub microscopic drops or chance clumping of molecules?

thanks...

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> What appears to be cloud-free air (virtually) always contains sub microscopic drops, but as evaporation exceeds condensation, the drops do not survive long after an initial chance clumping of molecules.
> http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html
>

> I am wondering of the form of water we are considering. Which sounds like the form of water your working with, sub microscopic drops or chance clumping of molecules?But
>
> thanks...

Excellent website. It's good to see there are some genuine college professors addressing some of the popularistic myths of meteorology. But I don't think this professor has quite broken free from these myths. And that is a problem because unless you break free from all of these myths you will most likely be drawn back in to the seduction of the other myths.

So, what is going on?
Water molecules are constantly coursing back and forth between phases (another word for the three states: vapor, liquid, and solid).

This is mistaken. Vapor is not a phase change. Vapor is liquid suspended in air. Electrostatic charges are the force that suspends heavier microdroplets.


If more molecules are leaving a liquid surface than arriving, there is a net evaporation; if more arrive than leave, a net condensation. It is these relative flows of molecules which determine whether a cloud forms or evaporates, not some imaginary holding capacity that nitrogen or oxygen have for water vapor.

The rate at which vapor molecules arrive at a surface of liquid (cloud drop) or solid (ice crystal) depends upon the vapor pressure.

The rate at which vapor molecules leave the surface depends upon the characteristics of the surface. The number escaping varies with:
the phases involved --- molecules can escape from liquid more readily than from the solid (ice);
the shape of the boundary --- molecules escape more readily from highly curved (small) drops or ice crystals (convex);
the purity of the boundary --- foreign substances dissolved in the liquid or ice diminish the number of water molecules which can escape;
the temperature of the boundary --- at higher temperatures the molecules have more energy and can more readily escape.

And therein lies the origin of the myth. The temperature of a cloud droplet or ice crystal will be (nearly) the same as that of the air, so people imagine that somehow the air was to blame. But, if the (other gases of the) air were removed, leaving everything else the same, condensation and evaporation would proceed as before (the air was irrelevant to the behavior). To assign the behavior of water to an invented holding capacity of the air is like assigning your life's fortunes to an invented influence of the constellations (and as we all know, nobody does that anymore).

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. Electrostatic charges cause microdroplets (which are heavier than air molecules) to be pulled up between the N2 and O2 of the atmosphere (this results in that parcel of air being heavier [not lighter]).

So, what do you tell your students?

What appears to be cloud-free air (virtually) always contains sub microscopic drops,

Yes. This is correct. (Except actually it's always, not virtually always.)

but as evaporation exceeds condensation, the drops do not survive long after an initial chance clumping of molecules.

Not true. The droplets always persist. There is no gaseous H2O (steam) in earth's atmosphere. Invisibility of vapor is not evidence that it contains gaseous H2O. That is a bullshit assumption that this professor has fallen for.

H2O is only gaseous at temperatures above it's boiling point. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a dumbass that should be deliberately ignored. Invisibility of moist air is not evidence that it contains gaseous H2O. Don't be gullible like this professor.


As air is cooled, the evaporation rate decreases more rapidly than does the condensation rate with the result that there comes a temperature (the dew point temperature) where the evaporation is less than the condensation and a droplet can grow into a cloud drop.

Kinda true, accept that there is never any truly gaseous (monomolecular) H2O in earth's atmosphere. Never. It's impossible. So condensation involve smaller (often invisibly smaller) microdroplets combining to form larger (often visibly larger--due to having a diameter longer than a photon) microdroplets. Condensation, therefore, never, ever, ever, ever involves a phase change.

Evaporation increases with temperature, not because the holding capacity of the air changes, but because the more energetic molecules can evaporate more readily (with, of course, the caveat that evaporation is also influenced by things other than temperature, as described above).

Temperature is an influence, pressure is an influence, electric charge is an influence, turbulence is an influence etc.

If that explanation is not simple enough for your students, just present the facts: when the temperature drops below the dew-point temperature, there is a net condensation and a cloud forms.

What does this prove though?


But don't ever teach nonsense by claiming that the air has a temperature-dependent holding capacity for water vapor.

I disagree. Air does have a holding capaity. And it is partly dependent on temperature and so there are other factors also.

The fact is droplets of H2O that are considerably heavier than either N2 or O2 particles do/does stay suspended. Something is holding it there and preventing it from falling due to gravity. IMO, it is obvious that electrostatic charges are involved. And I suspect the high surface tension of H2O is a factor.

A little history
The idea that it is the air which determines the amount of water vapor which can be present through some sort of holding capacity is an eighteenth century idea which was shown to be false both empirically and theoretically about two hundred years ago!

I think this author is oversimplifying something that is actually more complex than he suggests. What exactly is he talking about here? I can't figure it out.


The fact that it is still taught in our schools and defended by teachers and (gulp) professors, is a testimony to the mindless persistence of myth. A discussion of some of the history of this bankrupt idea is offered by Steven M. Babin .

Bad Clouds FAQ
Before writing me with a question about this page, please check the Bad Clouds FAQ to see if the issue has already been addressed satisfactorily.


I will look when I get a chance.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

BTW, there is a phase change associated with storms and with jet streams. But it does not involve gaseous H2O. It involves a transition between vaporous H2O (microdroplets, often too small to be visible) and plasma. And it only occurs under windshear conditions. It involves spinning microdroplets (as a result of windshear) and the ensuing plasma is manifested in vortices. These vortices, sometimes stretching for thousands of miles, are the conduits of all energy and flow in our atmosphere. Low pressure energy flows upstream and down in these conduits, causing storms, and moist air flows up and downstream, allowing our atmosphere to more rapidly achieve relative thermal equilibrium.

Convection and latent heat (of H2O) are bullshit notions.

[James McGinn]

Science groupies always pretend they have some deep understanding that is too deep for simple understanding. These simpletons are incapable of details. Undoubtedly Sergio barely understands any of this. The trick is to put him on the spot and make this imbecile explain what he only pretends to understand.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:

> go read some books on the subject first,
> you are starting at too low a level for this group.
> we cant educate you here
> James McGinn is entirely made up fiction.

Tread name; Amazon deletes James McGinn's Troll Book after bad complaints..

The reason I keep participating is because of the enrichment factor. If you start a thread on a fringe science subject, will not the discussion follow it ?
So the level of discussion wasn't initiated by me. Again I am appreciative of you providing an entrance and folder to feed the discussion and hope you keep adding incites.

[Sergio]

no problem,

James McGinn's problem is that he denys the existanse of water vapor,
which runs counter to all science fields, and underscores his lack of
knowledge or honesty.

such a fundimental non-understanding of basic science causes James to be
labeled a troll, etc by everyone that knows how gases/liquids work.

but dont let his floundering inhibit or influence you,
there are many gas/liquid models out there you can use that run in a
broswers.

and thousands of great books with the real stuff, many on line, free

James McGinn is made-up bad science fiction.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 3:37:32 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/30/2016 3:03 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

> James McGinn's problem is that he denys the existanse of water vapor,
> which runs counter to all science fields, and underscores his lack of
> knowledge or honesty.

Frank,

Note that this birdbrain has to put words in my mouth to make his point.

I suggest you ask him to provide a direct quote or concede that he is FOS.

Science groupies don't understand science. They are the dumbest of the dumb.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

As I been reading about it, there seems a lot of lattitude to its definition anyway.
I wonder how spinning segments of water molecules could be tested? An aircraft with Langmuir probes flying at the tropopause boundry ? CAT would be an idicator of a good measuring zone?

[Sergio]

the full range, from individual molicules (water vapor or water gas), to
2 to 2,000 clumped to 2 billion a micro-dropett
(your homework, how big across is 2 billion water molecules clumped
together?, assume no gravity)



more from that link;

"So, what do you tell your students?

What appears to be cloud-free air (virtually) always contains sub
microscopic drops, but as evaporation exceeds condensation, the drops do

not survive long after an initial chance clumping of molecules. As air

is cooled, the evaporation rate decreases more rapidly than does the
condensation rate with the result that there comes a temperature (the
dew point temperature) where the evaporation is less than the
condensation and a droplet can grow into a cloud drop.

Evaporation increases with temperature, not because the holding
capacity of the air changes, but because the more energetic molecules
can evaporate more readily (with, of course, the caveat that evaporation
is also influenced by things other than temperature, as described above).

If that explanation is not simple enough for your students, just
present the facts: when the temperature drops below the dew-point
temperature, there is a net condensation and a cloud forms.

[Sergio]

too many uncontrolled varables,

best to do that in a chamber on the ground, you can control temp,
pressure, amount of water vapor, N2, O2, etc

what did you want to measure ?

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:03:24 PM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> As I been reading about it, there seems a lot of lattitude to its definition anyway.
> I wonder how spinning segments of water molecules could be tested? An aircraft with Langmuir probes flying at the tropopause boundry ? CAT would be an idicator of a good measuring zone?

Check this out. Manmade vortices from aircraft.

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-inside-a-jet-engine

[osbo...@gmail.com]

>Sergeo wrote;

> too many uncontrolled varables,
>
> best to do that in a chamber on the ground, you can control temp,
> pressure, amount of water vapor, N2, O2, etc
>
> what did you want to measure ?

Looking for the presence of plasma, I initially was thinking of a chamber, but wondered if it would be simpler insitu ?

Or how about using this bad boy:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/33/18/310/meta

An infrared heterodyne interferometer has been used to measure the spatial distribution of the electron density in direct current, atmospheric pressure discharges in air. Spatial resolution of the electron density in the high-pressure glow discharge with characteristic dimensions on the order of 100 µm required the use of a CO2 laser at a wavelength of 10.6 µm.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

> James wrote;

> Check this out. Manmade vortices from aircraft.
>
> http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-inside-a-jet-engine

Wow!!!! I worked on the flight line at Boeing (F4 pdm program, pigs really can fly..) we were always aware of this issue...

Brings to Mind Charle's paper on why the vortex is so narrow at ground level when it sould spread out..

[osbo...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 12:39:13 PM UTC-5, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > James wrote;
> > Check this out. Manmade vortices from aircraft.
> >
> > http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-i
nside-a-jet-engine

I was trying to answer Surgeo's 2 billion water molecule question...

HOT HOT HOT!
Check this out Hoss;
"causing water molecules to align preferentially in a specific direction"!!

"The Mickey Mouse-shaped molecule therefore does not have the same charge at its center as at its extremities. When an ion, which is an electrically charged atom, comes into contact with water, the network of hydrogen bonds is perturbed. The perturbation spreads over millions of surrounding molecules, causing water molecules to align preferentially in a specific direction

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-ion-impacts-million-molecules.html#jCp


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-ion-impacts-million-molecules.html#jCp

[Sergio]

you are misreading it.

"...direct current, atmospheric pressure discharges in air." is
lightning discharge.


further on;
"With the discharge operated in a repetitive pulsed mode..."

they are measuring generated sparks in a repetitive pulsed mode




there is no plasma in the atmosphere except for lightning.

If there was, then most all materials would get corroded very quickly.

[Sergio]

On 7/31/2016 1:11 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 12:39:13 PM UTC-5, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:


>
> I was trying to answer Surgeo's 2 billion water molecule question...
>

so, what is the diameter of a 2 billion water cluster of water molecules ?

[Sergio]

On 7/29/2016 7:38 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php?text=full&images=true&units=imperial

that is old the references are before 2008, and he calls it in his
conclusion "...a massively speculative work", it is not science, not fact.



> Thanks
> Frank
>

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 10:39:13 AM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > James wrote;
> > Check this out. Manmade vortices from aircraft.
> >
> > http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-inside-a-jet-engine
>
> Wow!!!! I worked on the flight line at Boeing (F4 pdm program, pigs really can fly..) we were always aware of this issue...
>

> Brings to Mind Charlie's paper on why the vortex is so narrow at ground level when it should spread out..

Yes, I think I get your (and Charlie's) point. This is one of many observations that are very inconsistent with what the convection model of storm theory predicts. (Personally I've considered the convection/latent heat model of storm theory to be nonsense for the longest time.)

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-inside-a-jet-engine
Note how they ask why this only happens occasionally:
“I have seen this in a picture once online and thought it was very strange and wondered about the formation of this vortex and how could it happen. Not everyday do you see this happening. So how does this happen, and why does it not happen very often?”

I predict that following

1) Very dry (low humidity) atmospheric conditions in general.
2) Calm, windless conditions atmospheric conditions in general.
3) A morning rain shower that coats the ground with moisture or just moisture on the ground that persists from overnight storms
4) Direct sunshine on the runway that heats up the moisture.
Taking all of these together, the theory is that this would form an extensive, low hanging boundary of moist air that hangs a few inches or a few feet above the runway.

All of the above are necessary because the emergence of these jet-engine vortices are highly dependent on initial conditions that produce an extensive, distinct, smooth, flat, boundary between moist air and dry air. The vortice would start to form as the boundary layer (between dry air above and moist air below) got sucked into the jet engine.

And so, my answer to the questions as to why this phenomena only happens ocassionally is that the prerequisites delineated above are relatively rare.

In a sense these prediction can be used as a post facto experiment or test of my hypothesis in that if the conditional factors that I enumerated above were not present that would refute the understanding of vortices and the plasma thereof that I theorize

Lastly, think about the following comment (from the same website) in the context of my assertion that wind shear is instrumental:
“Another picture of this strange occurrence. This generally happens with thrust reversal.”

Wind shear (thrust reversal) is necessary because only wind shear along a distinct moist/dry boundary can cause the microdroplets along the surface of the moist boundary to be bombarded by dry air molecules that cause them to begin spinning which, of course, causes the microdropets to elongate into polymers of H2O (maximizing its surface area) that are the basis of this plasma (maximizing H2O's surface tension).

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

[osbo...@gmail.com]

Sergio wrote:

> there is no plasma in the atmosphere except for lightning.
>
> If there was, then most all materials would get corroded very quickly.

Ok my bad boy tool idea was a bad idea. but would this paper give pause to the idea of no weak plasma in the troposphere?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002A%26G....43f...9A&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES
The origin of the electric field of plasma vortices occurs in the fields of pressure gradients mosaic mesh topology is conditioned by the ionization of particles associated with the solar photon flux and the cosmic radiation. Atmospheric aerosol particles play an important role in generation of vortices. It is shown that the geomagnetic field produces structural changes of an inhomogeneous medium with excitation of plasma vortices and their interaction. During collisions of vortices centered on the same geomagnetic line one powerful vortex can occur. The collision of vortices with centers at different geomagnetic field lines may cause appearance of areas of heating and jet streams production. Since vortices transfer mass and energy, generation of new vortices in an inhomogeneous field of the plasma vortices damping is possible.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

Sergio wrote:
>
> so, what is the diameter of a 2 billion water cluster of water molecules ?

So, this is the maxium stable water cluster of 280 ?
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedral_water_clusters.html

Twenty of the 14-molecule tetrahedral units, together containing 280 molecules of water, may form a 3 nm diameter a icosahedral structure (see below left); small differences in geometry throughoutb being taken up by flexibility of the hydrogen bonding. The icosahedral (H2O)280 water cluster shows increased stabilization as the shells increase in the order (H2O)20 < (H2O)100< (H2O)280 [1619].h

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:23:23 PM UTC-4, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/28/2016 07:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
> > On 7/28/2016 1:34 PM, jmc...@womply.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 5:42:16 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 5:25:27 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 7/24/2016 4:36 PM, osbor[]ail.com wrote:
[snip]
> >>>
> >>> Uh, so, Sergio. Let me ask you a question. What is the boiling
> >>> temperature of H2O?
> >
> > at what pressure ?
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Do you really believe it is possible for H2O
> >>> to be a gas below its boiling temperature?
> >
> >
> > How does your shirt dry on a clothes line ?
> > where does the water go ?
> > It is below boiling temperature.
>
> Sergio space is like a thermos bottle so no heat ever reaches the earth!
>
> That is a given!

Another nym JM? So you dry your clothes in outerspace?
Please, get yourself some help.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-4, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:18:04 AM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> > water treatment Germs and microbes - there is an article in the WSJ
> > today on how Hospitals are using more copper in their facilities as
> > surfaces to kill MERS and a lot of other bad germs. Like using on
> > tables, doorknobs, where ever a person would touch.
>
> From WSJ article;
> "Copper... has antimicrobial properties that kill 99.9% of bacteria on its surface within two hours"
>
> Wow! Who knew.

Most metals are anti-microbial. Some more than others. I think Silver
is supposed to be the strongest.
Ed

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:48:36 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:

> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:14:24 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> > On 7/28/2016 1:34 PM, jmc...@womply.com wrote:

[]
> > you should *make the case* for your imagination in your troll book, no
> > one else will, or can. you should rewrite it, and remove all the
> > punctuation marks. Call it a vowel movement.
>
> So, uh, you admit you can't dispute it, right?

Why would someone have to dispute science fiction?
But I will say, Jim, the story is weak on character development.

[Sergio]

he should beef-up "Evil Meteorologists" into a "Boris and Natasha"


and he could be Rocky the Flying Squirrel

[Sergio]

On 8/1/2016 2:37 AM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>
>> there is no plasma in the atmosphere except for lightning.
>>
>> If there was, then most all materials would get corroded very
>> quickly.
>
> Ok my bad boy tool idea was a bad idea. but would this paper give
> pause to the idea of no weak plasma in the troposphere?
>
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np

that is anther old paper, 2002
and it talks about the *Mesosphere*, not troposphere.

All of what the paper discusses is very well know, there are many books
on the subjects at the libarary.

do you have vision problems? you seem to miss the important details.

do you know what plasma is? the 4th state of matter? no molecular
bonds ? which means its atoms will combinds instantly when not in
plasma state.

[Sergio]

On 8/1/2016 3:00 AM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>>
>>

>> so, what is the diameter of a 2 billion water cluster of water
>> molecules ?
>

> Is this saying, its not going to happen (with in the definition of a
> cluster? ;

> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedral_water_clusters.html Twenty
> of the 14-molecule tetrahedral units, together containing 280
> molecules of water, may form a 3 nm diameter a icosahedral structure
> (see below left); small differences in geometry throughoutb being
> taken up by flexibility of the hydrogen bonding. The icosahedral
> (H2O)280 water cluster shows increased stabilization as the shells
> increase in the order (H2O)20 < (H2O)100< (H2O)280 [1619].h

> http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedral_water_clusters.html
>

wrong answer. try again

so, what is the diameter of a 2 billion water cluster of water
molecules ?

[hint: try calculating it, forget structure, do min and max to bracket it]

[Sergio]

go to wiki for starters, plasmas are very interesting, but think sparks
and lightning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

[Sergio]

wrong answer,

what is diameter of 2 billion water molecules? How big is that drop ?

[hint: one water molecule is about ??? pm ]

[Sergio]

[hint: take 2*10^9 times _______ = ________ ]

[osbo...@gmail.com]

ok hoss..
2 * 1,000,000,000= 2,000,000,000. ok?
I'm not offended if you hold my hand and walk me through it...
what now?

[noTthaTguY]

don't you love those plastic Boeing models, three?

[noTthaTguY]

you presume that moist air is not humid, although
a hygrometer must measure some thing; so,
hunid air is lighter than dry air,
simply because of stoichiometry & molarity ... and,
let's toss some uncertainty about the orientation of HOH's

> It is slow. Low energy. Convection is obvious BS. Obviously moist air is heavier than dry air, so it fails even on this most fundamental level.
>
> compared to the quickness large destructive tornadoes occur, forming with in minutes.
>
> Obvious to anybody with half a brain.
>
> > You may not agree with his ideas. But what about the observation, that it lacks a confirmed explanation? Just curious if there is any entry level agreement to the discussion.
>
> You might as well explain auto mechanics to your dog as explain anything to Sergio. Sergio won't understand any better than your dog, but at least your dog won't hate you for trying.

[Sergio]

lets try again;

what is volume of one water molecule ?

what is 2,000,000,000 times that ?

[Sergio]

On 8/1/2016 5:34 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> don't you love those plastic Boeing models, three?
>
>> so, what is the diameter of a 2 billion water cluster of water molecules ?
>

three, the surfers value of Pi,

[James McGinn]

Sergio don't explain nuttin. Never hask, never will. He can't. He's an idiot.

[Sergio]

diameter is 2.8 angstroms ? ( 0.28 nm ) ?

distance between water molecules in bulk water is 0.31 nm ?

so volume of a sphere is V = 4/3 * pi * r^3 ?

r = 0.28 nm / 2 ? = 0.14 nm ?

r^3 = ( 0.14 * 10^-9 ) ^ 3 m ? = 0.14 ^3 * 10^(-9*3) m ?

r^3 = 0.002744 * 10 ^ (-27) m ?

or r^3 = 2.744 * 10 ^ (-30 ) m ?

V = 4/3 * 3.1415926... * 2.744 * 10 ^ (-30 ) m^3 ?

V = 1.1494 * 10^(-29) m^3 ?

times 2 billion

Vdrop = 2.3 *10^(-20) m^3 ?

Vdrop = 2.3 * 10^(-11) mm^3 ?

that seems too small!

Extra Credit (50 points each)

1. Check my math 2 billion water molecules is very very small
2. determine the largest and smallest the drop could be depending upon
the orentation of the water molecules.
3. how many molecules does a drop of water 1 mm^3 have ? (+-10%)

[James McGinn]

Your point?

[osbo...@gmail.com]

no point necessary for me.
I'll write home to mom... look mom, I'm doing physics!
.. like sticking my face in a superman cut out for a photo. It's still fun. Math is fun. the endorphins are the same as running 10Ks (in my younger days..)
Will do my homework tonight when off my shift..

[osbo...@gmail.com]

James wrote;
This is mistaken.  Vapor is not a phase change.  Vapor is liquid suspended in air.  Electrostatic charges are the force that suspends heavier microdroplets. ...

The thing I'm having issue with is the deffinitions. To say this doesn't happen in nature is a hard sell. clearly clouds and fog are going to have drops and droplets but....

I work at Sewer Treatment and we use multigas monitors. O2 is one of the sensors. It seems in a high vapor (as a gas) environment if water can exist in a vapor, it should displace the normal amount of breathable O2. So I'll carry one my truck and next time I spot a fog bank I'll test its O2 level(my form of caveman science, stick hand in fire...)?

[Sergio]

Great, don't forget the extra credit problems!

I never thought a 2 billion molecules of water would end up so small.


a drop of 1 mm diameter has ______ number of molecules (+-25%) ?


I have to go back to work too, they let us up for ciggy break on the
surface, double shifts but pay is ok.

[Sergio]

*My point is that McGinn makes a HUGE mistake in scale.*


4.716278×10²⁰ molecules in a 3 mm drop.


about 1.7*10^21 molecules in a drop of water:


The accepted average volume of a drop of water is exactly 0.05 mL (20
drops per milliliter). It turns out there are over 1.5 sextillion
molecules in a water drop and more than 5 sextillion atoms per droplet.

molecules in a drop of water = 1.67 x 1021 water molecules

There are 1.67 sextillion H2O molecules in a drop of water. This is
determined by using the formula of 50 microliters per drop of water

Out of how many atoms a drop of water consists? Water, in the
chemical sense, is for the first no element, but consists of the two
elements hydrogen and oxygen. A hydrogen atom is with just one proton
the lightest of all. However, from the diameter, helium atoms are the
smallest atoms. Number of Atoms in a drop of Water: One water molecule
has a diameter of just 0.0000028 millimeter or 0.28 nm. One gram of
water consists of 3,455,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules,
respectively of 100,365,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. That are over one
hundred billions of trillions! One drop of water weighs 0.4 gram and
consists of 13,382,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules


A vide-store as large as a mall in just one water drop If one could
save data in a waterdrop and one water molecule would be one Bit, than
one could save 2,676,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes in it, respectively
2.43 billion Terabytes. That conforms 75 million years of video in a
DVD-quality.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

maybe I'm lazy.
But I was thinking of the humid environments on earth and thought of the Amazon basin. the O2 levels there are 23.5%. eventhough production through plant expiration is high, but the water vapor should be displacing this and driving it down?
The Scripts institutes has O2 monitoring station data. I compared some of it. Still thinking I would see lower O2 next to the ocean and higher in cold dry climates.
Antiartic 211.03-562 ppm?
lajola ca. pier 87-582 ppm
Cold Bay Alaska 99-659..
It wasn't vary conclusive. but the lowest measurments were at the warmer cost line locations. I was just aye balling the downloaded csv files on my phone.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/index

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:08:39 AM UTC-7, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:

> The thing I'm having issue with is the definitions.

The people creating the definitions assumed it ("it" being gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures). It seems that this is something everbody assumes.

> To say this doesn't happen in nature is a hard sell.

Well, it is a hard sell, unfortunately. At one time it was a hard sell to convince people that the earth was not the center of the universe.

> clearly clouds and fog are going to have drops and droplets but....

The assumption is that clear moist air must have gaseous H2O, otherwise it would be visible. But this is flawed. The fact is that whenever the diameter of a microdroplet gets below the length of a wavelength it becomes invisible. So the assumption that microdroplets are always invsible is nonsense.

> I work at Sewer Treatment and we use multigas monitors. O2 is one of the sensors. It seems in a high vapor (as a gas) environment if water can exist in a vapor, it should displace the normal amount of breathable O2. So I'll carry one my truck and next time I spot a fog bank I'll test its O2 level(my form of caveman science, stick hand in fire...)?

It would be simple enough to do an experiment in which moist air and dry air (all other factors: pressure, heat, wind, etc. being controlled) are weighed, using very sensitive scales:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

Do you have access to sensitive scales (weight comparator)?

Jim McGinn

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:44:18 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/2/2016 10:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
> > On 8/2/2016 9:37 AM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> no point necessary for me. I'll write home to mom... look mom, I'm
> >> doing physics! .. like sticking my face in a superman cut out for a
> >> photo. It's still fun. Math is fun. the endorphins are the same as
> >> running 10Ks (in my younger days..) Will do my homework tonight when
> >> off my shift..
> >>
> >
> >
> > Great, don't forget the extra credit problems!
> >
> > I never thought a 2 billion molecules of water would end up so small.
> >
> >
> > a drop of 1 mm diameter has ______ number of molecules (+-25%) ?
> >
> >
> > I have to go back to work too, they let us up for ciggy break on the
> > surface, double shifts but pay is ok.
>
> *My point is that McGinn makes a HUGE mistake in scale.*

WTF? Quote me directly you strawbaiting nitwit.

[James McGinn]

I wish I could tell you it would be easy.

The biggest obstacle is getting an understanding of H2O polarity and implications thereof. Water is fascinating. There is a world of mystery and strange contradictions associated with how H2O molecules interact with each other. But it is extremely confusing. I suggest you wait on this. First get your assumptions straight in your head.

H

[osbo...@gmail.com]

To get my head arround things I have to beat a dead horse..
I took my multi gas monitor to the steam room at my gym.
normal O2 reads 20.8%
I measured at floor level and up at the top of the space. no change. If water vapor is in gaseous form, should it not displace the O2 ? At the top of the room.
What other caveman science could show this?

[Sergio]

water vapor in air is less than 0.1 %
this much will "saturate" the air, it cannot take on more water,
(depends upon temperature and pressure)

so you O2 sensor will be unable to detect it. but there are other easy ways

remember the water molecule is very small.

Partial Pressure of Water Vapor (Pw)

As we have seen previously, the air contains moisture or water vapor. As
per the Dalton’s law of partial pressure, this water vapor exerts
certain pressure independent of the other gases in the air. The pressure
exerted by the water vapor within the air is called as partial pressure
of water vapor (Pw). The more is the content of water vapor within the
air, more is the partial pressure of the water vapor within the air. In
the saturated air, the partial pressure of water vapor is maximum.

As per the Dalton’s law of partial pressure: P = Pd + Pw

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/rh.rxml

[Sergio]

On 8/2/2016 3:08 PM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> maybe I'm lazy. But I was thinking of the humid environments on earth
> and thought of the Amazon basin. the O2 levels there are 23.5%.
> eventhough production through plant expiration is high, but the water
> vapor should be displacing this and driving it down? The Scripts
> institutes has O2 monitoring station data. I compared some of it.
> Still thinking I would see lower O2 next to the ocean and higher in
> cold dry climates. Antiartic 211.03-562 ppm? lajola ca. pier 87-582
> ppm Cold Bay Alaska 99-659.. It wasn't vary conclusive.
>

> http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/index
>

water vapor is less than 0.1% in air, so you O2 monotor wont detect that.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

o dam...

[osbo...@gmail.com]

So I invert a water filled container(pet water feeder)in another bigger water filled container, bubble steam in to fill and expell the excess water. yet as it cools would there be any had left behind? Only the .1% of the volume?

[Sergio]

On 8/4/2016 10:49 AM, osbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> So I invert a water filled container(like a chicken water feeder)in

> another bigger water filled container, bubble steam in to fill and

> expell the excess water. yet as it cools would only .1% of a gas void
> remain?
>


How about a large fish tank, and low humidity ?

depending where you live, during the heat of the day the humidity will
drop to 30% or less. or inside airconditioning

you could put in the fishtank a graduated cylender with about 100 ml of
water.

then put a glass sheet on top, and seal the cracks.

the water will evaporate out of the cylender into the enclosed airspace
a fixed amount.

but you have to maintain the fishtank at the same temperature and
pressure. Inside aircondition room would work.

you would need a large fishtank. the amount of water vapor it could hold
would be small, and you are already starting off with 30% water vapor.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

then use wet/dry bulb thermometers as a testing method ?

maybe use reverse osmosis DI water?
less minnerals better evaporation?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

The mineral content should have little, if any, effect.