Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
57 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Feb 9, 2022, 1:35:15 AM2/9/22
to
Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Do-Vortices-Generate-Lightning-e1e57ae
James McGinn / Genius
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Do-Vortices-Generate-Lightning-e1e57ae
James McGinn / Genius
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 10:01:19 AM2/9/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
No.
Yet more raving nonsense.
> James McGinn / Delusional crackpot
> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
No.
Yet more raving nonsense.
> James McGinn / Delusional crackpot
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 10:46:11 AM2/9/22
to
https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
"But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
The article goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/
"The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know
what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still
debate about exactly how a cloud builds up electrical charges, and how
lightning forms. Scientists think that the initial process for creating
charge regions in thunderstorms involves small hail particles called
graupel that are roughly one quarter millimeter to a few millimeters in
diameter and are growing by collecting even smaller supercooled liquid
droplets. When these graupel particles collide and bounce off of smaller
ice particles, the graupel gains one sign of charge and the smaller ice
particle gains the other sign of charge. Because the smaller ice
particles rise faster in updrafts than the graupel particles, the charge
on ice particles separates from the charge on graupel particles, and the
charge on ice particles collects above the charge on graupel."
This article also goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
"But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
The article goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/
"The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know
what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still
debate about exactly how a cloud builds up electrical charges, and how
lightning forms. Scientists think that the initial process for creating
charge regions in thunderstorms involves small hail particles called
graupel that are roughly one quarter millimeter to a few millimeters in
diameter and are growing by collecting even smaller supercooled liquid
droplets. When these graupel particles collide and bounce off of smaller
ice particles, the graupel gains one sign of charge and the smaller ice
particle gains the other sign of charge. Because the smaller ice
particles rise faster in updrafts than the graupel particles, the charge
on ice particles separates from the charge on graupel particles, and the
charge on ice particles collects above the charge on graupel."
This article also goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 11:01:11 AM2/9/22
to
Overview nor NOAA research in thunderstorms, tornadoes, lighnting, hail,
damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
A detailed description of McGinn's lifetime research, observations and
data.
"Duh... uh ... err.."
damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
A detailed description of McGinn's lifetime research, observations and
data.
"Duh... uh ... err.."
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2022, 12:39:00 PM2/9/22
to
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:46:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>
> No.
> https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
>
> "But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
> place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
> smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
> being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
> an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
> hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
> differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
> falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
> collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
> and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
> has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
> charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
Yes! This is what I was talking about!
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>
> No.
> https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
>
> "But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
> place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
> smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
> being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
> an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
> hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
> differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
> falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
> collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
> and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
> has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
> charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
This is impressive Pennino. Not only did you provide a reference with a quote (from the reference) but you provided two of them! Two in one post! Bravo!!! Applause.
> The article goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
So, it appears to be a perfect fit. The fact that vortices are, essentially, conserved wind shear explains the origins of the electric charges.
> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/
>
> "The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know
> what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still
> debate about exactly how a cloud builds up electrical charges, and how
> lightning forms.
> Scientists think that the initial process for creating
> charge regions in thunderstorms involves small hail particles called
> graupel that are roughly one quarter millimeter to a few millimeters in
> diameter and are growing by collecting even smaller supercooled liquid
> droplets. When these graupel particles collide and bounce off of smaller
> ice particles, the graupel gains one sign of charge and the smaller ice
> particle gains the other sign of charge. Because the smaller ice
> particles rise faster in updrafts than the graupel particles, the charge
> on ice particles separates from the charge on graupel particles, and the
> charge on ice particles collects above the charge on graupel."
> This article also goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
Also their theory fails to predict how lightning bolts can be (according to my model) hundreds of miles long. My theory predicts vortices being hundreds or even thousands of miles long--this reasoning being what underlies my prediction.
So, in conclusion, my theory of storms seems to dovetail perfectly with the evidence--even explaining how lightning can he hundreds of miles long--while the traditional model still seems to be grasping at straws.
Now what are you trolls going to do?
James McGinn / Genius
Michael Moroney
Feb 9, 2022, 12:48:50 PM2/9/22
to
On 2/9/2022 12:38 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> Also their theory fails to predict how lightning bolts can be (according to my model) hundreds of miles long. My theory predicts vortices being hundreds or even thousands of miles long--this reasoning being what underlies my prediction.
>
> So, in conclusion, my theory of storms seems to dovetail perfectly with the evidence--even explaining how lightning can he hundreds of miles long--while the traditional model still seems to be grasping at straws.
You don't even have a theory. A science theory has scientific
> Also their theory fails to predict how lightning bolts can be (according to my model) hundreds of miles long. My theory predicts vortices being hundreds or even thousands of miles long--this reasoning being what underlies my prediction.
>
> So, in conclusion, my theory of storms seems to dovetail perfectly with the evidence--even explaining how lightning can he hundreds of miles long--while the traditional model still seems to be grasping at straws.
observations and experimental evidence supporting it, as well as
predictions made and verified.
> James McGinn / Tard
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2022, 12:55:32 PM2/9/22
to
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 8:01:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>
> No.
> Overview nor NOAA research in thunderstorms, tornadoes, lighnting, hail,
> damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
>
> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
No quote?
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>
> No.
> Overview nor NOAA research in thunderstorms, tornadoes, lighnting, hail,
> damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
>
> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
You still don't get it. It is well known that online science forums are infested with trolls. pretenders, and believers. When you drop a reference without a quote or a quote without a reference you IMMEDIATELY lose credibility. You put yourself in the same category as Alsing or Moroney. Do you want that?
James McGinn / Genius
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2022, 1:02:07 PM2/9/22
to
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 1:16:10 PM2/9/22
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:46:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>>
>> No.
>> https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
>>
>> "But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
>> place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
>> smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
>> being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
>> an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
>> hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
>> differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
>> falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
>> collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
>> and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
>> has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
>> charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
>
> Yes! This is what I was talking about!
>
> This is impressive Pennino. Not only did you provide a reference
> with a quote (from the reference) but you provided two of them!
> Two in one post! Bravo!!! Applause.
Too bad for your that when one reads the entire article all your
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:46:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>>
>> No.
>> https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
>>
>> "But what creates the charged regions of the atmosphere in the first
>> place? In short, it is the collision of hail particles with other
>> smaller ice particles in a thunderstorm, which results in electrons
>> being transferred from one to the other. The smaller ice particles lose
>> an electron and gain a positive charge during a collision, whilst the
>> hail gains an electron and thus, a negative charge. Due to their
>> differing weights and interactions with the storm updraft, the hail
>> falls towards the bottom of the cloud and the smaller ice particles
>> collect at the top, giving the different areas of the cloud a negative
>> and positive charge, respectively. Once a significant charge difference
>> has built up, there is a rapid discharge of electricity to equalise the
>> charged regions – otherwise known as lightning."
>
> Yes! This is what I was talking about!
>
> This is impressive Pennino. Not only did you provide a reference
> with a quote (from the reference) but you provided two of them!
> Two in one post! Bravo!!! Applause.
"theories" are shredded.
>> The article goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
>
> Right. No mention of vortices and no mention of the process that
> would cause the collisions. Most importantly, the missing element
> in their explanation is an element that ALSO is critical to origin
> of vortices--wind shear!
explaination of the process that would cause the collisions, and it does
not include vortices and shows your "theories" to be utter, raving
nonsense.
> So, it appears to be a perfect fit. The fact that vortices are,
> essentially, conserved wind shear explains the origins of the
> electric charges.
>> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/
>>
>> "The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know
>> what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still
>> debate about exactly how a cloud builds up electrical charges, and how
>> lightning forms.
>
> Oops. Debate. I know how you science trolls hate to hear that word.
> I suppose that upon reading this we can expect you trolls to revert
> to hissy-fit mode.
article you would know that as well as the fact that all your "theories"
are, once again, shredded.
snip remaining delusional, raving babble too insane to be worth any
further reading or reply.
sergio
Feb 9, 2022, 1:28:15 PM2/9/22
to
Perhaps his mind jumps around too much, loose definitions, and thoughts are jumbled.
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 1:31:10 PM2/9/22
to
read the entire articles before declaring victory.
Well, you did get hoist on your own petard once again, so I guess you
did got (sic) something.
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 1:31:11 PM2/9/22
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 8:01:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>>
>> No.
>> Overview nor NOAA research in thunderstorms, tornadoes, lighnting, hail,
>> damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
>>
>> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
>
> No quote?
Nope, FAR too much information for a meaningful quote which is why
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 8:01:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
>>
>> No.
>> Overview nor NOAA research in thunderstorms, tornadoes, lighnting, hail,
>> damaging winds, winter weather and much more.
>>
>> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
>
> No quote?
there is just the summary of topics that I provided.
Do you have any idea who noaa.gov might be?
Snip remaining delusional, raving babble too insane to be worth any
further reply.
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2022, 1:45:51 PM2/9/22
to
> >> The article goes on in great detail with no mention of vortices.
> >
> > Right. No mention of vortices and no mention of the process that
> > would cause the collisions. Most importantly, the missing element
> > in their explanation is an element that ALSO is critical to origin
> > of vortices--wind shear!
> Actually if you had read the entire article you would find an
> not include vortices and shows your "theories" to be utter, raving
> nonsense.
Gee golly. So, they presented a hypothesis. They even alluded to uncertainty. But--predictably--you trolls just assumed it as certain.
> nonsense.
This is why no real scientist can ever take any of you church-lady, science groupies seriously.
> > So, it appears to be a perfect fit. The fact that vortices are,
> > essentially, conserved wind shear explains the origins of the
> > electric charges.
> Raving, delusional nonsense and contradicted by both articles.
> >> https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/
> >>
> >> "The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know
> >> what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still
> >> debate about exactly how a cloud builds up electrical charges, and how
> >> lightning forms.
> >
> > Oops. Debate. I know how you science trolls hate to hear that word.
> > I suppose that upon reading this we can expect you trolls to revert
> > to hissy-fit mode.
> The "debate" is in some of the fine points but if one reads the entire
> article you would know that as well as the fact that all your "theories"
> are, once again, shredded.
You got nothing, as always.
What's funny is you snipped the part where I made a prediction--about the length of lightning--a prediction that if it turns out to not be evident would destroy my hypothesis.
You trolls just have no clue about science at all. I serve you up a softball and you still can't hit it.
Find another hobby, you worthless science believer.
James McGinn / Genius
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 1:46:11 PM2/9/22
to
sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
<snip>
> gad, McGinn does not know what 'wind shear' actually means.
> Perhaps his mind jumps around too much, loose definitions, and thoughts are jumbled.
McGinn does not know what a LOT of words mean due to his utter refusal
to open a dictionary.
<snip>
> gad, McGinn does not know what 'wind shear' actually means.
> Perhaps his mind jumps around too much, loose definitions, and thoughts are jumbled.
to open a dictionary.
Solving Tornadoes
Feb 9, 2022, 2:02:53 PM2/9/22
to
You trolls need to at least learn to not be constantly advertising your own incompetence.
James McGinn / Genius
Claudius Denk
Feb 9, 2022, 2:07:56 PM2/9/22
to
What do you think this indicates?
Claudius Denk
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 3:16:14 PM2/9/22
to
I provided two short quotes from MUCH longer articles, which if you had
actually read you would have discovered your "theories" were ripped to
shreds.
I will not quote page after page of material anyone can simply look at
themselves, you insane idiot.
<snip delusional, raving babble too insane to be worth any further reply>
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 3:16:15 PM2/9/22
to
articles. Anyone that reads the actual articles will find your
"theories" are delusional nonsense.
> What do you think this indicates?
> Claudius Denk/James McGinn/proven mental case
Jim Pennino
Feb 9, 2022, 3:16:17 PM2/9/22
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:46:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > gad, McGinn does not know what 'wind shear' actually means.
>> > Perhaps his mind jumps around too much, loose definitions, and thoughts are jumbled.
>> McGinn does not know what a LOT of words mean due to his utter refusal
>> to open a dictionary.
>
> It's not like everybody doesn't know that when science trolls
> lose arguments they resort to the dictionary.
It's not like everybody doesn't know that when delusional crackpots find
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:46:11 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > gad, McGinn does not know what 'wind shear' actually means.
>> > Perhaps his mind jumps around too much, loose definitions, and thoughts are jumbled.
>> McGinn does not know what a LOT of words mean due to his utter refusal
>> to open a dictionary.
>
> It's not like everybody doesn't know that when science trolls
> lose arguments they resort to the dictionary.
themselves backed into a corner they blame the dictionary.
<snip delusional, raving babble>
James McGinn
Mar 3, 2022, 9:56:07 PM3/3/22
to
Jim Pennino
Mar 3, 2022, 10:16:12 PM3/3/22
to
" Scientists think that the initial process for creating charge regions
in thunderstorms involves small hail particles called graupel that are
roughly one quarter millimeter to a few millimeters in diameter and are
growing by collecting even smaller supercooled liquid droplets. When
these graupel particles collide and bounce off of smaller ice particles,
the graupel gains one sign of charge and the smaller ice particle gains
the other sign of charge. Because the smaller ice particles rise faster
in updrafts than the graupel particles, the charge on ice particles
separates from the charge on graupel particles, and the charge on ice
particles collects above the charge on graupel."
And you are still a ravining lunatic.
James McGinn
Mar 4, 2022, 11:47:34 AM3/4/22
to
Jim Pennino
Mar 4, 2022, 12:16:12 PM3/4/22
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
No.
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning
https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/what-causes-lightning
>>
>> James McGinn / Insane crackpot
Solving Tornadoes
Mar 28, 2022, 4:35:14 PM3/28/22
to
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Paul Alsing
Mar 28, 2022, 10:46:49 PM3/28/22
to
Dr. Robin Bedford
Claudius Denk
Apr 25, 2022, 2:26:31 PM4/25/22
to
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
Claudius Denk
Jun 1, 2022, 9:15:25 PM6/1/22
to
James McGinn
Jul 4, 2022, 3:21:30 AM7/4/22
to
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jul 4, 2022, 3:42:28 PM7/4/22
to
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
No. Why would round turn generate electric flow?
> Do Vortices Generate Lightning?
It would not be a constant everywhere...
Where has a tornado electricuted someone?
0 new messages