info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Convection is red herring. There is very little energy in convection.
23 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 27, 2016, 8:07:11 PM3/27/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Air pressure is the engine of earth's atmosphere (not convection). This engine is always running. It is always revved up. Air friction is the brakes of our atmosphere. The driver is constantly standing on the brakes. The means of converting the energy of the engine to movement (wind, jet streams, storms) involves getting the driver to release the brakes. And that involves aerodynamics. Aerodynamics require a surface. There is no obvious surface in our atmosphere. Gases don't have a surface. But plasmas do. Water has surface tension. Maximize surface area of water and you maximize surface tension--creating strong plasma. Conditional factors--dry/moist wind shear--that maximize surface area maximize H2O surface tension, creating a plasma, surface, aerodynamics, brakes release, jet streams, tornadoes, hurricanes, storms.
Why do jet streams occur along tropopause? Because this is where dry/moist wind shear is maximized. Energy of storms, updrafts comes from down-seeking jet streams, not convection. Convection is red herring. There is very little energy in convection.
Water is important because of the (strange) property that if you maximize water's surface area (as occurs in windshear) you maximize surface tension. This results in a strong water-based plasma that only occurs under wind shear conditions. This plasma is what provides the structure of jet streams and tornadoes, which are actually just a downward extension of a jet stream.
This explains something that meteorologists pretend to explain and pretend to understand.
Remember, air pressure is the engine of the high wind speeds we see in tornadoes. Not convection. Jet streams can't be pushed into existence. They can only be pulled into existence by some kind of negative air pressure, as I explained. Once you figure out the physics of the horse pulling the cart, which involves a water-based plasma, long, flat boundary layers, and windshear (for maximization of H2O surface tension [a positive feedback] to create a stronger plasma) the pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place, convection is shown to be unnecessary. So pretending it makes sense is also no longer necessary.
Once the genuine physics of the atmosphere are understood it opens us to the possibility of mitigating for tornadoes and hurricanes. Pseudo-scientific notions like convection and latent are literally stopping us from doing research that might mitigate tornadoes and hurricanes. The meteorological taboo/scheme to stay silent to not reveal to the public that they really have no physical basis for their convection model must be broken. Meteorologists must be forced--using legal means if necessary--to reveal that they really don't have a good understanding of atmospheric flow and storms.
Why do jet streams occur along tropopause? Because this is where dry/moist wind shear is maximized. Energy of storms, updrafts comes from down-seeking jet streams, not convection. Convection is red herring. There is very little energy in convection.
Water is important because of the (strange) property that if you maximize water's surface area (as occurs in windshear) you maximize surface tension. This results in a strong water-based plasma that only occurs under wind shear conditions. This plasma is what provides the structure of jet streams and tornadoes, which are actually just a downward extension of a jet stream.
This explains something that meteorologists pretend to explain and pretend to understand.
Remember, air pressure is the engine of the high wind speeds we see in tornadoes. Not convection. Jet streams can't be pushed into existence. They can only be pulled into existence by some kind of negative air pressure, as I explained. Once you figure out the physics of the horse pulling the cart, which involves a water-based plasma, long, flat boundary layers, and windshear (for maximization of H2O surface tension [a positive feedback] to create a stronger plasma) the pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place, convection is shown to be unnecessary. So pretending it makes sense is also no longer necessary.
Once the genuine physics of the atmosphere are understood it opens us to the possibility of mitigating for tornadoes and hurricanes. Pseudo-scientific notions like convection and latent are literally stopping us from doing research that might mitigate tornadoes and hurricanes. The meteorological taboo/scheme to stay silent to not reveal to the public that they really have no physical basis for their convection model must be broken. Meteorologists must be forced--using legal means if necessary--to reveal that they really don't have a good understanding of atmospheric flow and storms.
HVAC
Mar 27, 2016, 9:23:55 PM3/27/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Back in the day it was thought that if you dragged a red herring behind you it would throw bloodhounds off your trail
Sergio
Mar 27, 2016, 9:39:30 PM3/27/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 3/27/2016 8:23 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Back in the day it was thought that if you dragged a red herring
> behind you it would throw bloodhounds off your trail
>
According to a pair of articles by Professor Gerald Cohen and Robert
> Back in the day it was thought that if you dragged a red herring
> behind you it would throw bloodhounds off your trail
>
Scott Ross published in Comments on Etymology (2008), supported by
etymologist Michael Quinion and accepted by the Oxford English
Dictionary, the idiom did not originate from a hunting practice.[11]
Ross researched the origin of the story and found the earliest reference
to using herrings for training animals was in a tract on horsemanship
published in 1697 by Gerland Langbaine.[11]
Langbaine recommended a
method of training horses (not hounds) by dragging the carcass of a cat
or fox so that the horse would be accustomed to following the chaos of a
hunting party.[11]
He says if a dead animal is not available, a red
herring would do as a substitute.[11] This recommendation was
misunderstood by Nicholas Cox, published in the notes of another book
around the same time, who said it should be used to train hounds (not
horses).[11]
Either way, the herring was not used to distract the hounds
or horses from a trail, rather to guide them along it.[11]
James McGinn
Apr 6, 2016, 4:43:02 PM4/6/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:55 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> Back in the day it was thought that if you dragged a red herring behind you it would throw bloodhounds off your trail
Yeah, but all the time you spend trying to catch one can really slow you down.
> Back in the day it was thought that if you dragged a red herring behind you it would throw bloodhounds off your trail
James McGinn
May 14, 2016, 1:16:21 PM5/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Jul 10, 2016, 11:05:15 AM7/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 5:07:11 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages