How Blind Am I?
Abstract: Personal observations made at the top of Mary’s Mountain OR and from other sources are reviewed and compared with the data seen in Picture 1.
One conclusion is that condensation nuclei, which are silicates (sand), are hygroscopic (form weak, relative to the strong attractions of atoms to each other in molecules, attractions with water molecules) and therefore cause cloud droplets to form, as the air temperature cools, well before the relative humidity of the environmental atmosphere becomes 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
Evidence is reviewed that two natural sources of this atmospheric ‘sand’ is sand blowing off the Sahara Desert and the ash of volcanic eruptions. Which in turn suggests that much of the earth’s land surface (soil) is also hygroscopic. Therefore, one must conclude that water vapor (molecules) from the atmosphere also condense on the soil’s ‘sand’ before the surface cools to the dewpoint temperature of the atmosphere in contact with it.
Preface/Introduction
In my essays I like to tell a story (more often stories) which builds to a conclusion. So I have been advised that I should review at the beginning, for a potential reader, what this conclusion will be. Hence the abstract.
Because there are often several stories, I have been advised that I should keep my essays brief and to the point without many details of which a general reader of PSI is unlikely prepared to appreciate. So in this preface/introduction I tell some stories as a background to the brief essay which follows.
Near the end (mid-1990s) of my teaching career as chemistry instructor, I finally discovered and read a book (Louis Agassiz As A Teacher, Lane Cooper, 1917). Part of which book was a collection of writings by Agassiz’s former students in which they described how Agassiz had taught them and what he had taught them. One student wrote (In the Laboratory with Agassiz’, Samuel H. Scudder, Every Saturday, April 4, 1874, 16, 369-370): “Agassiz’s training in the method of observing facts and their orderly arrangement was ever accompanied by the urgent exhortation not to be content with them. ‘Facts are stupid things,’ he would say, ‘until brought into connection with some general law.’ ”
In this quote there is the word ‘facts’, which is a plural (more than one fact). Which presents a problem if I am going to keep any essay brief.
But in this case there is a greater problem which I attempt to expose by asking: Why did Agassiz, seemingly continuously, make this same exhortation? Answering one question with another question, I ask: How many scientists, to say nothing about a general reader of PSI, are familiar with what a scientific law actually is? It seems evident that Agassiz, as a teacher, had to repeatedly drive this point home to his students. Why? Did he know that they did not yet appreciate the importance of a scientific law and therefore were not ‘looking’ for a scientific law which related one stupid observed fact to another stupid observed fact?
Now, a stupid fact is that Agassiz was a naturalist. Is a naturalist different from a scientist? My answer: Yes and no! or No and yes! A naturalist is a scientist who studies ‘nature’ in its natural setting. A meteorologist studies weather. Natural weather cannot be brought into a laboratory setting. The naturalist must take his/her instruments into the ‘natural world’. This is what has been done to create Picture 1 of the data of an atmospheric sounding.
Next I ask: How is this picture of the data of this single atmospheric being used by meteorologists? Would it surprise you, a general PSI reader, that it is not being used to study weather? I challenge anyone to question my exhortation (conclusion): No, it is primarily being used to predict future weather!
I next ask: From the data seen in Picture 1, can anyone tell me if there were any clouds present in the lower 4000 meters when the air temperature (the upper trace) was always greater of the atmosphere than the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature (the lowest trace)? Some, knowing what the definition of the dewpoint temperature is, may answer: There cannot be any cloud in the lower 4000 meters because the air temperature has not cooled to the dewpoint temperature at which time cloud must form. However, from the hourly weather report of the data being observed when the sounding was launched, I read that the atmospheric condition was ‘cloudy’.
Essay:
Several hours after the morning sounding of September 6, 2019 (Picture 1) I had traveled to Mary’s Mtn. and hiked to its peak (4097 feet, about 1240 meters). What I observed was a nearly continuous shallow layer of cumulus cloud below with a continuous, much less dense cloud (haze) immediately above it. While the haze was much less dense than the cumulus layer, I could not see any of the Cascade Mountain Range to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Both of which would be plainly seen if the atmosphere was cloudless.
Comparing these observations with the data of Picture 1, I leap to the conclusion that the shallow cumulus layer was at an elevation of 812 meter where the air temperature increased about 4oC. To keep this essay brief, I make no more conclusions about what I observed and their significance beyond the fact that during the sounding there were likely clouds similar to the ones I observed several hours later at a distance of about 50 miles.
For I consider the more important issue is the formation of cloud, or the formation of dew, at air, or surface, temperatures greater than the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature.
Previously I had written an essay titled: How Stupid am I? (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/) This previous title was explained by a brief story: “However, having grown up in northeastern South Dakota where the precipitation was commonly much less than that of Iowa, the result was that our relative humidity was usually significantly less than that of humid Iowa. So I knew the reason for the warmer nights in Iowa was that dew generally formed on stuff there much earlier in the evening then it did where I grew up. And sure enough this example of the greenhouse effect quietly disappeared. And I forgot about dew.”
Now I ask: How Blind am I?
I explain this question by reviewing what I generally knew but did not see.
First I review some more history. My wife and I moved to Salem in 2004 or 2005 (I forget). And our new (to us) home had upstairs windows from which we could see two mountains (Mount Hood and Mount Jefferson), both about 50 miles distant. The climate of Salem is that in the summer it is warm and arid and the sky is commonly cloudless. But from time to time high visible cirrus (ice crystals) clouds did form and often there was a ‘haze’ which reduced the visibility of the mountain peaks about 50, or so, miles away.
So when I discovered the atmospheric sounding were being made at Salem at 4am and 4pm Pacific Standard Time, I began to study the sounding data in an attempt to learn what the elevations of the clouds (during both the summer and winter), which I could see, were. I immediately saw that I could not determine the elevations of the clouds because the maximum relative humidity being measured often did reach 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, or even 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, when clouds were plainly visible and totally hid the mountains whose peaks were at an elevation of about 10,000ft and their timberlines were at about 6000ft.
Decades ago I had read: “These results obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation [of water vapor] occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation”, and are effective as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in the air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.” (Weather and Climate, R.C. Sutcliffe, 1966)
And I never seriously considered what these hydroscopic condensation nuclei might be. This, even though as a chemist I had long used volumetric glassware and knew about the meniscus formed by a water solution in a glass tube. I found that the word ‘meniscus’ must be unfamiliar to many as I could not find it my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary when I was not sure how to spell it. So, I turned to the internet to document that which I knew from experience. “A concave meniscus, which is what you normally will see, occurs when molecules of the liquid are attracted to those of the container. This occurs with water and a glass tube.” (USGS) And from the internet: “The most familiar, and historically the oldest, types of manufactured glass are “silicate glasses” based on the chemical compound silica (silicon dioxide, or quartz), the primary constituent of sand.” (Wikipedia) I long knew this also.
My next simple question, as I write this, was: what is the source of these sand condensation nuclei? This question helped me to remember that my nephew had gone on a mission trip to the west coast of Africa to help build an eye clinic for volunteer eye doctors. For treatable eye diseases were very common there. Why? The answer seemed to be that minute sand particles being blown off the Sahara Desert were scratching the eye balls of the natives living there.
A second possible source of the minute sand particles, given the question, was easier to see: volcanic ash. But was volcanic ash principally sand? Again, on the internet I found: “Results indicate that the basic composition of the ash [of Mount Saint Helen] consists of approximately 65{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} SiO2 … ” and there was no need to go further. For SiO2 is silicon dioxide.
So I simply conclude that the natural atmosphere’s condensation nuclei have at least two natural sources of minute sand particles which are hygroscopic.
But, for a moment or two or more (my blindness), I did not see that most all soil of the earth had a composition of some sand. Hence, I must conclude (it follows) that water vapor from the atmosphere can condense (form dew) on these sand particles of the soil’s surface before the soil’s surface temperature cools to the air’s dewpoint temperature.
To keep this essay brief, I will not begin to review the consequences of what I have finally seen.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Kaiser,
Being blind and stupid is part of the human condition. It is also part of the human condition to try to ameliorate these conditions.
Have you considered that the same attraction of water for silicate that forms the meniscus and causes water droplets to form would occur on the surface of a thermometer and inhibit the transmission of kinetic energy to it? Is the “potential energy” of the heat of crystallization and evaporation just a result of the material the thermometer is made from? By using water (I don’t know of an alternate) to calibrate thermometers have we incorporated a fundamental error in all our measurements of temperature and energy in one of the most basic instruments used by science?
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb.
Here is an simple experiment for you to try. Wax the gas bulb of a laboratory thermometer that has been ‘calibrated’ with boiling water and melting ice. And measure the temperature of your boiling water and melting ice. Wax (a hydrocarbon) does not contain any oxygen atoms; hence it does not have any significant attraction for water molecules. So according to your reasoning it was seem you expect to measure temperatures that were not near 100C and 0C.
Please report back what temperatures you observe.
And by the way, the editor of PSI, made a simple mistake. I was the one who questions:
How Blind Am I?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I modified you experiment. If I coat the thermometer with a wax it will have a layer adhering to it which inhibits the transfer of kinetic energy. Instead I constructed a double boiler arrangement where I put a small beaker containing mineral oil (paraffin) into a lager beaker of water. I then put them on a hot plate with the thermometer bulb suspended in the mineral oil and heated the beakers. I turned it off when the temperature on the thermometer registered 120 C and the water was still not boiling.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You reported: “I modified you experiment. If I coat the thermometer with a wax it will have a layer adhering to it which inhibits the transfer of kinetic energy.”
My proposed experiment is very simple and there is no reason you needed to modify it. If the wax inhibits the transfer of kinetic energy ….. . Oh, I get it. You are claiming the wax layer acts the same as the very thin layer of water molecules attracted to the glass surface of the bulb. So you expect that temperatures measured by the waxed thermometer bulb would be the same as those used to calibrate the thermometer. Which, the measured temperatures with the modified thermometer would be the same as when the thermometer was calibrated, was the reason I asked you to do the experiment.
Water and wax clearly have different physical properties so it would seem that one should not expect them to inhibit the transfer of kinetic energy, your theory, in the same way.
There are significant problems with the reported results of your modified experiment. First I ask: Are you implying that by placing a small beaker of mineral oil in a larger beaker of water prevents the water from boiling as your ‘double boiler’ is heated with the hot plate long enough?
But secondly, the purpose of a double boiler is to prevent the beaker of mineral oil from being heated directly by the hot plate. So the mineral oil should only be heated due to the temperature of the water. So, if your experiment actually involves a double boiler, you need to explain why the water is not boiling if it heats the mineral oil to 120C.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The double boiler is used to have the water in the beaker, being heated by the hot plate, heat the beaker with the mineral oil in it. If the water in the beaker boiled it would mean the temperature of the water was 100 C. I turned the heat off because I didn’t want to break my thermometer by adding too much heat to the mineral oil. as there is a delay in the transfer of heat to the mineral oil. After turning off the heat the temperature registering on the thermometer rose to over 160 C. I thought the results of the thermometer registering 120 C when the water heating the mineral oil had a temperature of less than 100 C showed that the method used to calibrate the thermometer did not give an accurate measurement of kinetic energy.
Have a good day,
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I screwed up.The thermometer was fahrenheit no Celsius. Will report back when I re do it.
Have a good day,
Herb
4kx3
| #
Herb and Jerry:
The adsorbed water layer is only a molecule or so thick and does not alter the heat transport of the thermometer. If water is condensing on the thermometer that might be another matter.
You might be interested in the series of papers by Khvorostyanov and Curry on nucleation or their book on “Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi 4kx3,
I now do not believe that the water is insulating the thermometer.Because of the shape and size of the meniscus in a graduated cylinder I believe that the layer of water attracted to the glass is more than 1 molecule thick. Have you looked at the video by Dr. Pollock that Duncan Maccrimmon provides a link to in one of his comments? I found his data on the 4th state of water (EZ water) very interesting.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “Because of the shape and size of the meniscus in a graduated cylinder I believe that the layer of water attracted to the glass is more than 1 molecule thick.”
That’s a very critical observation and it certainly is what can be observed time again. So it is reproducible. And I cannot explain how the interaction between the glass and water molecules in contact with the surface is ‘transmitted’ onto the next molecules.
Now that I wrote the previous I have something for you to consider. First, I ask: How are the molecules of a solid different from the molecules of a liquid? My answer is that the molecules of a liquid have a greater freedom to move. Whereas the those of the solid are at a first approximation are stationary. Hence, the attraction between the liquid molecules of water and the ‘solid’ glass inhibits the motions of the water molecules. Hence there is a layer of ‘liqiud’ water molecules which at a first approximation are basically stationary and so on. This imagined mechanism of attractions explains what you and I see, but perhaps there is a better explanation (mechanism).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Have you looked at the video by Dr. Pollack that Duncan MacCrimmon provided a link for? I found his theory of a 4th state of water (EZ water) very interesting with good supporting evidence. I recommend it to you.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Evidently you haven’t read my comment of 9/20 to Duncan in which I explained why I only watched the first 8 minutes of the 24 minute. ‘lecture’.
I recommend you read my comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
John O'Sullivan
| #
Apologies for incorrectly attributing Jerry’s essay to Klaus Kaiser. Now fixed
Reply
DUNCAN MACCRIMMON
| #
Wow Jerry,
You and Herb Rose have again drawn attention to the need to pay attention to experimental observations before indulging in theoretical leaps.
Real experiments should trump (sic) thought experiments every time.
Kudos to both of you,
djm
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Duncan,
You just wrote: “Real experiments should trump (sic) thought experiments every time.”
And then you brought to our attention Pollard’s videoed lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU). I must admit I only watched about 8 minutes of its 24 minutes. But in those first 8 minutes I was not introduced to one observation.
Now, I just went back and watched the first 8 minutes again. And I have tried to learn more about Dr. Gerald Pollard and when I ‘googled’ the name I could not find anyone of whom I could be certain that it was he. I did find a Dr. William G. Pollard who had many honors and was involved in the Manhattan Project during WWII. So, I could imagine this was Dr. Gerald’s father; but I certainly do not know if such is true.
As I rewatched the first 8 minutes of Dr. Gerald’s video, I finally clearly saw what caused me to dismiss anything he had to say. It was an image of water molecules moving as if they were something being actually observed with the naked-eye or even a special camera. I know such is an impossibility and that what was being shown was a computer simulation of his theoretical ideas. It was the results of a thought experiment.
What I did not see during those first 8 minutes was a description of the observed fact that the density of liquid begins to decrease with decreasing temperature below about 4 degrees Celsius. What I did not hear was the observed tendency of liquid cloud droplets to supercool,instead becoming ice, as the atmospheric temperature cools below 0 degrees Celsius. These two observations need a thoughtful explanation. And there is another common observation which needs explanation: ice floats on liquid water.
As we try to understand water molecules and their behaviors, any of our ideas must consistently explain these three unquestionable observations.
So, I see I need to try to compose an essay with the title: I am blind! I am stupid! Observed Fact!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: . . . what was being shown was a computer simulation of his theoretical ideas. It was the results of a thought experiment. What I did not see during those first 8 minutes was a description of the observed fact that the density of liquid begins to decrease with decreasing temperature below about 4 degrees Celsius.
JMcG: I agree. These are known unknowns. Another one is, why with supercooled water does this 4 degree reversal not take place? There are upwards of 70 observations that are known as the “anomalies of water.” Pollack is ignoring all of this. (But so is much of science.)
Jerry: What I did not hear was the observed tendency of liquid cloud droplets to supercool,instead becoming ice, as the atmospheric temperature cools below 0 degrees Celsius. These two observations need a thoughtful explanation. And there is another common observation which needs explanation: ice floats on liquid water.
JMcG: I agree. These are pooorly explained by current theory. Pollack appears oblivious to what are already known unknowns. (But, to be fair, most of society is oblivious to these known unknowns. Quackademia doesn’t teach this stuff. It is deliberately ignored.)
Jerry: As we try to understand water molecules and their behaviors, any of our ideas must consistently explain these three unquestionable observations.
JMcG: There are even more fundamental observations that don’t have good explanations under the current model. For example, why would a polar molecule ever have the low viscosity we see in liquid water? Is this not an obvious indication that H2O polarity is not static, as is assumed (for no good reason) by the current model? (BTW, my model solves this problem.) And then there is surface tension. H2O’s high heat capacity? Are these explained by the current model? Is Pollack addressing any of these known issues? It would appear he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Jerry: So, I see I need to try to compose an essay with the title: I am blind! I am stupid! Observed Fact!
JMcG: As long as the current paradigm of chemistry stubbornly maintains the delusion that H2O polarity is is static–this being an epistemological consequence of Pauling’s Omission (for further details search James McGinn Pauling’s Omission)–making sarcastic essays about being blind, as you have done here, is the best anybody will ever do. Pollack, it seems, is drawing off the intellectual dishonesty of current theory to make his own brand of intellectual dishonesty on this maligned subject.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=240#p122435
Have you ever wondered why liquid H2O is so fluid? If you look into the literature you will read that the H2O molecule is a polar molecule. Reading further . . .
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You have asked several times: “why would a polar molecule ever have the low viscosity we see in liquid water?”
I have no answer because I have no theory of what is involved in the property we call the viscosity of a liquid or the viscosity of a gas. I pretend to somewhat the property we call friction. The resistance of one ‘surface’ moving pass another ‘surface’. But my understanding is that only solids and liquids have surfaces; unless a gas is in contact with a liquid or solid surface. For then the surface of the solid or liquid defines a surface of the gas.
We, you and I, agree on so many things; so it is amazing to both of us that we can so strongly disagree about some very specific and real (actual) things.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry, when people are confronted with something that they have always believed but that isn’t true they experience cognitive dissonance. People who experience cognitive dissonance can always pretend to agree. Pretending to agree is something that goes hand in hand with pretending to understand, pretending to not notice contradictions, and pretending to not understand simple concepts, like viscosity, that would cause them to acknowledge contradictions.
You do understand viscosity, jerry. Stop pretending.
Imagine two containers or boxes with a capacity of about a half gallon. They have open tops (no lid). Inside one is about 200 marbles, they fill it to about three quarters capacity. Inside the other is 200 iron balls of the same size, and these iron balls are magnetized. They are dipoles. They are polar. On one side of the iron ball it is more negative and on the other it is more positive.
Now lets say we turn both of these containers on their sides. The marbles would flow out of the container with no internal resistance. They have low viscosity. But the one with the iron balls woould not flow. The iron balls would clump. They have high vicosity.
Now do the same with water. The water will flow unhindered, like the marbles, unlike the iron balls.
Can you and/or the members of the current brain-dead paradigm on H2o explain how a container filled with molecules that have a fixed (static) polarity will flow like a box of marbles? No, of course you can’t. So what do you do? In your case, you pretend that you don’t understand very simple concepts like viscosity. How does quackademia deal with this? They label it as an anomalie and collectively ignore it.
H2O does not have a fixed or static dipole. It has a dipole that varies inversely with interconnectedness, as explained here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448#p128692
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jerry krause
| #
HI James,
You wrote: “Inside the other is 200 iron balls of the same size, and these iron balls are magnetized. They are dipoles. They are polar. On one side of the iron ball it is more negative and on the other it is more positive.”
When you wrote: “They are dipoles”, I do not know if you are referring to electrical dipoles or even if the term magnetic dipoles exists. When you wrote: “They are polar.” I still am not certain to what you are referring. When you wrote: “On one side of the iron ball it is more negative and on the other it is more positive.” I am reasonable certain you are referring to an electrical dipolar.
However, there is much greater problem with your thought experiment. Neither the macroscopic marbles nor macroscopic iron balls in the box are moving.
You seem to expect me to accept that the marbles and iron balls of your thought experiment are no different from water molecules. When they stop moving after being dumped from the boxes, as I have observed to happen when I have spilled a bucket of marble on a floor, or the ground. If water molecules would stop moving like the marbles are observed to do, I expect their temperature would be 0K, which is not okay.
And James, I know you are better than this attempt to confuse me and/or the readers.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: You seem to expect me to accept that the marbles and iron balls of your thought experiment are no different from water molecules.
James: The current paradigm assumes H2O molecules are like a static magnet. (BTW, a magnet and dipole are the same thing.) I thought you realized/understood this since this has been a part of standard theory from before you were even born.
As I’ve explained to you about fifty times now, standard theory (the current paradigm) fails in regards to upwards of 70 observations that it is unable to explain or reconcile. These observations are referred to as the anomalies of H2O. But Jerry, given that you’ve gone all this time being blissfully unaware of any of this I can certainly understand why you would not want to rock your little tug boat.
My own theory proposes a solution to the shortcomings of the standard theory (the current flawed paradigm). Obviously this is not something of any interest to you. But, possibly, there are others that will read this and, possibly, they may be more interested in a progressive approach to the subject.
My own theory proposes variability as being intrinsic to H2O polarity.
Jerry: And James, I know you are better than this attempt to confuse me and/or the readers.
James: Why would I want to do that, Jerry?
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122376
You can’t understand tornadoes (and/or jet streams) unless and until you understand how the composition of the sheath of a tornado is molecularly distinct from that of the air that surrounds it and that moves up through it.
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
When you want to pretend there are no water molecules in the atmosphere, I really do not have much time to ponder your unique ideas of which so many, like me, and my former professors seem (ed) unaware.
When you want to pretend that marble and iron balls are the equivalent of the nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, etc. of the atmosphere, in which the measured natural speed of sound is about 700 mile per hour (an actually observed fact), I really do not have much time to ponder your unique idea of which so many, like me, and my former professors seem (ed) unaware.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
When you want to pretend there are no water molecules in the atmosphere, I really do not have much time to ponder your unique ideas of which so many, like me, and my former professors seem (ed) unaware.
JMcG:
Don’t put words in my mouth, you moron.
Jerry:
When you want to pretend that marble and iron balls are the equivalent of the nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, etc. of the atmosphere, in which the measured natural speed of sound is about 700 mile per hour (an actually observed fact), I really do not have much time to ponder your unique idea of which so many, like me, and my former professors seem (ed) unaware.
JMcG:
Your convoluted reasoning, intellectual dishonesty, and phoney humility is something for which you should be embarrassed.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=120#p115048
Here is an interesting concept that might get you back on the right track and into the right frame of mind. Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard or harder than ice? When you understand why this is the case you will also understand why it is totally impossible for evaporation (at ambient temperatures) to produce gaseous H2O.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I find it very interesting that water converts to a solid (no viscosity) before becoming steam. Are you proposing that water goes from a Newtonian liquid to a non Newtonian liquid where water becomes a colloidal suspension where the new type of water crystals become insoluble in the liquid water? Does this only occur in a closed container where there is a pressure increase or does it also occur in unconfined water where there is no pressure change? What do you theorize is the change in the structure of the hydrogen bonds that causes this phenomena?
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I am a slow learner or maybe a compassionate person as I keep replying to your comments.
You wrote: ” Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard or harder than ice?”
The answer to your question is: No, I didn’t know this and I still don’t. Just because you wrote this, without any supporting evidence, it certainly does not make what you wrote an observed fact.
Do you know that pressure melts ice? My observed evidence is the game of hockey or the ‘art’ of figure skating. So, I did not know that ice was so terribly hard as solids go.
I have been taught that diamond (pure carbon) is one of the hardest solid.
And you have just reminded me of something that I had forgotten and should have written about a long time ago. The observed structure of ice is just like that of diamond where the carbon atoms have been replaced by specifically orientated water molecules. Isn’t that amazing?
So, James, thank you very much for helping me remember this observed fact.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: Just because you wrote this, without any supporting evidence, it certainly does not make what you wrote an observed fact.
James: I agree.
Jerry: The observed structure of ice . . .
James: Just because you wrote this, without any supporting evidence, it certainly does not make what you wrote an observed fact.
Jerry: . . . is just like that of diamond where the carbon atoms have been replaced by specifically orientated water molecules.
James: LOL. Back in the 1930s two British con artists, Bernal and Fowler, presented hand-constructed models of H2O molecules sporting, as you describe, “specifically orientated water molecules,” that they claimed were representative of the structure of ice. There was no way to confirm or deny these claims and despite the fact that the “specifically oriented” aspect of these models of solid H2O suggested intermolecular forces that had never been detected, the scientific community embraced their claims. Apparently the models were just too pretty to reject.
In reality H2O molecules do not magically reorient themselves to achieve highly symmetrical arrangements in ice. (Likewise, H2O molecules do not magically defy their known boiling temperature/pressure in order to comply with oversimplified meteorological models, contrary to what you and many other pretentious “experts” choose to believe.) And, in accordance with my model, if they did they would not have hard bonds since hard bonds require tetrahedral asymmetry (in liquid water the bonds are symmetric, in ice they are asymmetric, in accordance with my model). Moreover, if they could achieve both symmetry and hard bonds ice would float a lot higher that it does in that symmetry would cause it to be 50% less dense than liquid water instead of the 10% density difference we do see.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
I find it very interesting that water converts to a solid (no viscosity) before becoming steam. Are you proposing
James:
I can’t think of any simple way to answer these questions that wouldn’t involve me having to educate you in my whole model. Along these lines, let me present you with a more digestible challenge. Suppose you are, somehow, closely observing several hydrogen bonded H2O molecules of liquid water. According to my model of hydrogen bonding in H2O you would notice a few things. Firstly, you would notice constant movement. The hydrogen bonded molecules would not appear bonded, rather they would appear to oscillate back and forth, bumping against each other, moving away, reversing and coming back to bump again. Secondly, the movement would appear to contradict Coulomb’s law in that according to the inverse square aspects of this law the force of attraction should be stronger when they were closer to each other but in actuality the movement would appear to indicate that the force of attraction became less the closer they came to each other and increased up to a certain distance (this certain distance would be about the length of the diameter of the outer shell [electron cloud] of an oxygen atom). As I suggested, this would appear to be a contradiction to the reverse square aspect of Coulomb’s law. But actually it doesn’t. Why doesn’t it.
BTW, what you would be witnessing would literally be the energy conservation properties associated with the liquid phase of H2O that is also referred to as the high heat capacity of liquid H2O.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Actually, the reversal of Coulomb’s law and the increase in strength of the bonds make sense if you accept Dr. Pollack’s theory that the nano droplets are formed from the combining of a hydroxyl ion with water molecules giving them a negative charge. As the droplets move apart more hydrogen ions (H3O +) move between them increasing the attractive force pulling them closer together.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: Actually, the reversal of Coulomb’s law . . .
James: There is no reversal of Coulomb’s law. (It’s a law!)
Herb: . . . and the increase in strength of the bonds make sense if you accept Dr. Pollack’s theory that the nano droplets are formed from the combining of a hydroxyl ion with water molecules giving them a negative charge.
James: The suggestion that ions could form at such low temperatures is plainly absurd.
Herb: As the droplets move apart more hydrogen ions (H3O +) move between them increasing the attractive force pulling them closer together.
James: You aren’t making any sense at all, as far as I can tell. But, for purposes of argument, let’s say you are right. Okay, now show us how your model resolves the anomalies of H2O. It’s troubling that I even need to explain this to you. It should be obvious that resolving the anomalies of H2O is the litmus test that matters.
The thing that is most troubling about Pollack is that there is very little drama in his evidence (ie. exclusion zone) and his solution solves his one problem. Why is he not applying it to find resolution to these numerous anomalies. The answer to this question is, I’m afraid, that he is just clueless. He is oblivious. He doesn’t grasp the fact that there is no need to go out searching for umexplained and unresolved observations in regard to water. (Yourself too, for that matter.)
Pollack’s thinking appeals to people who are not well educated in chemistry and its underlying basis in quantum mechanics. Moreover, his appeal is mostly aesthetic. If you read the comments of his video (especially his Ted Talk video) you would realize that Pollacks thinking appeals to the same mindset we see with adherents of global warming and other woo-woo sciences.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found . . .
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You are the only person I know, with a chemistry background, who does not believe that water splits into hydroxyl (OH -) and hydrogen ions (H3O +). I can understand why a proton (hydrogen ion) would be attracted to the electron pair of an oxygen atom in a water molecule which are not covered by hydrogen atoms. It also seems quite logical that the negative hydroxyl ion would couple with the positive charge on a hydrogen atom of a water molecule.
Quantum physics was created to explain the behavior of subatomic particle in an atom where the accepted laws of physics (gravity, etc.) did not seem too function. I do not believe quantum physics applies to larger objects, like molecules, which do seem to follow the conventional laws of physics.
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote to Herb: “I can’t think of any simple way to answer these questions that wouldn’t involve me having to educate you in my whole model.”
Neat reversal!! Herb asks you to share your wisdom and you throw the ball back into Herb’s court. I am beginning to believe that you have no complex ‘model’ to explain.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
H2O does not have a fixed or static dipole. It has a dipole that varies inversely with interconnectedness, as explained here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448#p128692
James McGinn
| #
Herb::
Quantum physics was created to explain the behavior of subatomic particle in an atom where the accepted laws of physics (gravity, etc.) did not seem too function. I do not believe quantum physics applies to larger objects, like molecules, which do seem to follow the conventional laws of physics.
James:
Wow. Astounding. i’m speechless. I will just say that if you don’t understand the relationship of QM to chemistry you need drop everything and gain that understanding. I would suggest searches on YouTube and the internet.
james McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
By only watching the first 8 minutes you missed most of the data he presented on how the exclusion zone around hydrophilic surfaces (glass, nuclei on which clouds form, etc.) behaves It not only excludes observable colloidal particles but also salt ions (desalination) and also produces an electrical gradient where the different charges of the water can produce a current. The size of this zone increases when additional light is directed through it.
I know that James believes that water is made by pure covalent bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and does not split into hydroxyl and hydrogen (H30 +) ion. I also know since you are a chemist and from your comment to my response to James’ assertion that water is made from covalent bonds that you do not believe this. The animate representation of the rings of water that make up the exclusion zone appear to me to be very similar to James’ nano droplets and they are a result of a hydroxyl ion combining with other water molecules to form these larger water structures. The data showing this zone growing larger when additional energy (light) is added would indicate that the dis-association of water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen is not a constant 10 ^ -7 but changes as the water absorbs and stores energy and the nano droplets or rings become smaller.
As to your wanting an explanation of why water in clouds supercools I will repeat. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN , the thermometer’s temperature is wrong. You cannot produce super cooled water in a lab unless there are no particles (nuclei) or agitation which will initiate the formation of ice crystals. It only happens in pure still water. Since the formation of clouds begins around nuclei then grows and there is a lot of agitation in the atmosphere super cooling cannot happen. It is liquid water observed in clouds so the kinetic energy of the molecules must be between o C and 100 C, not the -50 C you believe it to be.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “By only watching the first 8 minutes you missed most of the data he presented on how the exclusion zone around hydrophilic surfaces (glass, nuclei on which clouds form, etc.) behaves It not only excludes observable colloidal particles but also salt ions (desalination) and also produces an electrical gradient where the different charges of the water can produce a current. The size of this zone increases when additional light is directed through it.”
And I ask: This has been observed how?
I admit that what I recently proposed is much like Pollard is proposing, The difference is he seems to imply that what he proposes has been actually observed instead of only imagined.
Is this thing we call imagination a big deal? Evidently Einstein thought so as I believe he did state: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” And “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
You wrote: “Since the formation of clouds begins around nuclei then grows and there is a lot of agitation in the atmosphere super cooling cannot happen.”
Tell that to the people whose love ones have died as their airplane crashed after it had been flown into a supercooled cloud. I have observed big passenger planes being sprayed with a anti-freeze solution before taking off. Is this really an unnecessary precaution to help some company to sell more anti-freeze?
I believe it is not honest to imply that one can literally see things which one can only imagine. You can see a rain droplet but you can never see the water molecules of which the droplet is composed. So you can never see the perpetual motions of the atoms and molecules in each of the ‘three’ fundamental phases of matter. Each with its observable different physical properties by which we distinguish a liquid from a gas. A gas is easily compressible and a liquid liquid is not. A solid is not more compressible than a liquid but a solid can retain its shape whereas the liquid conforms to the shape of its solid container’s bottom. For the liquid which conforms to the shape of its solid container, as stated, cannot fill the container as a gas does.
Herb, when will you learn that anything you can imagine does not become the ‘truth’. What one can imagine must be tested by natural observations, or by artificial experimental observations (measurements). Of course, you can state that a ‘calibrated thermometer’ can not always measure that which we call ‘temperature’ as you live in your imagined world in which I, and many others, do not live.
Remember, more than one airplane has crashed as ice forming on it wing’s surfaces changed the aerodynamics of its carefully constructed wings.
Read how the Wright Brothers had to carefully measure the aerodynamics of surfaces having various shapes after failing two times to construct their glider’s wing so they lifted the heavier than air machine from the earth’s surface.
Here, we have the observation that ‘very little’ things can have critically important effects. Something which seems to be ignored by those who tend to dismiss ‘very little’ things.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In the winter when the ground is very cold and rain falls creating a sheet of ice is it because the rain drops are super cooled or because the ground is cold? The ice formation on planes is from the cold surface of the plane not the water.
One of the characteristics of a super cooled liquid is a rapid conversion of the entire liquid to ice when the crystallization is initiated. You do not see this in the water in clouds. The turbulence produced by an airplane should cause all the water droplets to convert to ice creating a cloud of ice instead of a layer of ice on the wings. Do you really believe that the de-icing mechanisms on planes can provide enough energy to the large quantity of water striking the plane’s surfaces to raise the temperature of all of them from -48.7 C (the lowest temperature that super cooled water has been observed) to 0 C? No Jerry. The de-icing only raises the temperature of the planes surfaces enough to prevent ice from forming on them, not enough to add 50 calories/gram to the water striking it.
As to the observation of the desalinated water and the electrical differential between the exclusion zone and the body of water it was observed by sampling the water and inserting electric wires to measure the current produced.
The pictures in the video showing the action in the exclusion zone were done by the high powered microscope shown in the video focused on the interface between the glass wall of the container and the water in the container. I am sure you are aware of interfacial tension, which is similar to surface tension, where water forms a layer of molecules between the water and any surface it is in contact with.
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
As to the observation of the desalinated water and the electrical differential between the exclusion zone and the body of water it was observed by sampling the water and inserting electric wires to measure the current produced.
The pictures in the video showing the action in the exclusion zone were done by the high powered microscope shown in the video focused on the interface between the glass wall of the container and the water in the container. I am sure you are aware of interfacial tension, which is similar to surface tension, where water forms a layer of molecules between the water and any surface it is in contact with.
James:
Okay, but so what? Watch this part of the video again.
Why is this useful
https://youtu.be/i-T7tCMUDXU?t=769
How is any of this significant or novel? He mentions charge separation in the exclusion zone. Okay. How is this useful? He eludes to it being like battery. That just sounds silly. How is he going to harness this?
I agree that this isn’t well explained by the current standard model. My own model explains how charge separation increases with increase in temperature. I explain the fundamentals. Pollack is just waving his hands.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351
In the 1950s they considered ways to potentially stop or steer a hurricane . . .
I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped. And the way to do so involves attacking them where they are most vulnerable, at the boundary layer in the tropopause that is the raw material for the vortices that deliver the energy of storms.
James McGinn
| #
Herb: As to your wanting an explanation of why water in clouds supercools I will repeat. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ,
JMcG: I think it does happen:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448#p128713
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘plasma’ of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122167
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I do not know your age, but I know my age (78). And with each year older I find I omitted obvious words with greater frequency and even if I carefully proofread; I do not see all these omissions. But I believe that some readers are able to see the critical word I now know that I have omitted. Can you see it?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry,
Congratulations on your article.
When Dr Jerry Krause’s work is published as Dr Klaus Kaiser’s work and Dr Jerry thought Herb was Matt how can there not be satire.
I saw your comments to me 14th this month and intend to reply in a week or so.
Best wishes
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I repeated the experiment with the mineral oil using a full sized Fahrenheit thermometer. (caution just because a thermometer only goes up to 120degrees does’t mean it’s centigrade). The results were that I could only get the temperature of the mineral oil to reach 208 F. That would indicate, to me, that the water molecules are not bonding to the thermometer and the hidden energy is contained in the hydrogen bonds between water molecules.
The short thermometer was also the now I used when submerging the body of the thermometer in the boiling water so the 120 C mark I told you was incorrect. When submerging the full length Fahrenheit thermometer to the -20F mark the temperature registered 216 F. Still an impossible number but far less of a deviation.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
DUNCAN MACCRIMMON
| #
It may be of interest to PSI readers to view this link drawing attention to the many as yet unrecognized puzzles of WATER:
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pollack’s thinking is a mess. He refers to “charge separation.” There is no discussion of how he detected it. To me it seems obvious he is talking about surface tension. But who knows. He then goes on to make absurd speculations about H2 O3, or something like that. He is just a mess
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The charge separation he is talking about is the separation of water molecules into hydrogen ions (H302 + (the hydrogen ion or proton combines with another water molecule)) and the hydroxyl ion (OH -). This spontaneous separation is what gives pure water a pH of 7.
I believe that this separation and the collective behavior Dr. Pollack is talking about is a result of the hydrogen bonds that you theorize about. If there are hydrogen bonds between water molecules and more energy is added that energy results in a change of the structure of the water as a whole. Aren’t you and Dr. Pollack in agreement just your perspective is on the molecular level while his is on the collective level?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: The charge separation he is talking about is the separation of water molecules into hydrogen ions (H302 + (the hydrogen ion or proton combines with another water molecule)) and the hydroxyl ion (OH -).
James: To me it seems obvious that this is a pretty extravagant claim. I would think such a claim would be followed by detailed excplanation or discussion (even if only speculative) as to how such an extravagant change would take place. You have covanlent bonds breaking and reforming and no mention of any thermal signature predicted or detected. And all of the extravagance is intended to explain his exclusion zone that only he has ever detected and how he detected it is obscure, as far as I can tell.
Herb: This spontaneous separation is what gives pure water a pH of 7.
James: I don’t see how.
Herb: I believe that this separation and the collective behavior Dr. Pollack is talking about is a result of the hydrogen bonds that you theorize about.
James: He seems oblivious to the relation of hydrogen bonds to the quirky properties and underlying confusion associated with the “anomalies” of H2O.
Herb: If there are hydrogen bonds between water molecules and more energy is added that energy results in a change of the structure of the water as a whole. Aren’t you and Dr. Pollack in agreement just your perspective is on the molecular level while his is on the collective level?
James: Pollack doesn’t seem to want to address the known anomalies of H2O. Why, I can’t figure out. It seems he is deliberately ignoring the previous thinking. Because of that it’s hard to take his thinking seriously. I’m not saying he has to agree with it. (Much of the BS in meteorology and climatology has its roots in bad thinking in regard to water.) But he seems to be ignorant of it.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601#p117321
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I am beginning to think that the bonds of a water molecule are not a simple covalent bond but a hybrid of a covalent and a ionic bond
When you add electrons to a salt solution it produces Cl2 and caustic soda (Na + & OH -) which doesn’t happen with solutions made from substances comprised of covalent bonds.
When the single electron of a hydrogen atom is associated with the oxygen atom the hydrogen atom becomes a proton attracted to the oxygen by its electric charge making it an ionic bond.
It could be that if water has a hybrid bond forming the molecule it could explain its peculiar properties.
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “I am beginning to think that the bonds of a water molecule are not a simple covalent bond but a hybrid of a covalent and a ionic bond”
This has been the accepted understanding of the chemistry community for decades when the covalent bond is between atoms of different elements. What have you been reading?
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
I reposted this here so that the context is not lost. Apologies.
Hi Herb,
Herb:
I am beginning to think that the bonds of a water molecule are not a simple covalent bond but a hybrid of a covalent and a ionic bond
When you add electrons to a salt solution it produces Cl2 and caustic soda (Na + & OH -) which doesn’t happen with solutions made from substances comprised of covalent bonds.
When the single electron of a hydrogen atom is associated with the oxygen atom the hydrogen atom becomes a proton attracted to the oxygen by its electric charge making it an ionic bond.
It could be that if water has a hybrid bond forming the molecule it could explain its peculiar properties.
JMcG: I can’t make much sense of this. Sorry. I can only think you may be a victim of the myth that you can understand hydrogen bonding between water molecules without getting rigorous with the underlying quantum mechanics. Maybe this will help:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448&p=128692#p128692
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
” . . . Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere . . . “
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Duncan,
Very interesting and informative video by Dr. Pollack. Thank you.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You concluded: “When submerging the full length Fahrenheit thermometer to the -20F mark the temperature registered 216 F. Still an impossible number but far less of a deviation.”
First, ‘submerging the full length Fahrenheit thermometer to the -20F mark’ does not describe the depth of the the thermometer’s bulb in the water. Previously at another posting’s comment I review that the gas pressure of a bubble forming at the bottom of the water’s container is the pressure of the the atmosphere at the surface of the water plus the pressure the water exerts upon the bubble which forms at the bottom of the container where it is being heated and where any observed boiling action must begin. As it is the rapid rise of these bubbles formed at the base of the water which creates the ‘rolling’ boiling action. Maybe ‘rolling’ is not the correct word but I believe you know how you identify that the water is boiling. Because the vapor pressure which forms at the base of the water is the atmosphere pressure plus the pressure exerted by the waters depth, I believe (conclude) the 216F is a reasonable measured temperature. And I would expect if raised the thermometer so its bulb was just below the surface, you would read a lower temperature.
I also know that a described how chemists are taught to measure the boiling temperature of a liquid. Which was to just hold the thermometer’s bulb a little above the surface of the boiling liquid and allow the condensed liquid to drip back into the boiling liquid and as this is occurring ‘read’ the temperature of the thermometer. And then go to a barometer to measure the atmospheric pressure at that time and report both the measured temperature and the measured pressure. For, we know (have observed) that the boiling temperature varies upon the varying pressure of the atmosphere.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
judy
| #
What is it that makes the convex meniscus that forms on water-based cleaning fluid on a glass-topped timber table change when liquid runs down the straight edge of the glass then seems to cling to the bottom of the glass and continue on to spread out on the timber surface of the table.
I think that its got something to do with the weight of the glass and the shape of the two adjoining surfaces. But, could you pls give me an eloquent explanation of the chemistry.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Judy,
I start by describing the situation you described For you never used the words horizontal and vertical. So, I assume the glass of the glass topped timber table is horizontal and the water-based cleaning fluid flows to the edge of the glass and down the vertical edge of the table. I assume this vertical edge of the glass is curved a little top and bottom so one will not cut oneself in handling this sheet of glass. So wnen the fluid runs down the vertical edge of the glass and reaches the bottom curve, it follows this tiny curve. Next I assume, that the edge of the glass is near the vertical edge of the ‘timber’. For if the glass overhung the timber too far the liquid would not run back to the vertical timber but instead would drip from the bottom edge of the curved surface.
But if the edges are nearly flush with one another a small portion of the liquid will fill the tiny curved space between the glass and timber and after this tiny space is filled it will continue to run down the vertical edge of the timber. There is no convex meniscus because that requires there to a glass tube. But the liquid follows the tiny curve because of the slight attract of what to the glass.
Have a good day, Jerry,
Reply
DUNCAN MACCRIMMON
| #
Hi Judy and Jerry,
It might be the Coanda effect in play here as is sometimes seen with “dribble-some” tea pots.
Keep on clean’n,
DM
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Duncan,
I had never heard of the Coanda effect. So I ‘googled’ it and watched another video. During the video I never heard the word(s) Bernoulli or Bernoulli’s principle. “In fluid dynamics, Bernoulli’s principle states that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid’s potential energy.” (Wikipedia)
In the video I saw common demonstrations of the Bernoulli’s principle (effect) without any credit being given to the scientist who discovered the principle and explained the observed effects. And I saw a demonstration of the attraction of liquid water to certain solid materials which had a broad, curved surface of a mug or of the top of a bottle. Which is a completely different phenomenon.
But in the video there was no explanation of what was being observed beyond that it was the Coanda effect.
As I ponder what you, Duncan, have written, I question the disconnect between your seemingly accepted level, or basis, of understanding and that of my understanding.
Compare these histories: Daniel Bernoulli FRS was a Dutch mathematician and physicist and was one of the many prominent mathematicians in the Bernoulli family. He is particularly remembered for his applications of mathematics to mechanics, especially fluid mechanics, and for his pioneering work in probability and statistics. Wikipedia
Born: February 8, 1700, Groningen, Netherlands
Died: March 17, 1782, Basel, Switzerland
with
Henri Marie Coandă was a Romanian inventor, aerodynamics pioneer, and builder of an experimental aircraft, the Coandă-1910 described by Coandă in the mid-1950s as the world’s first jet, a controversial claim disputed by some and supported by others. Wikipedia
Born: June 7, 1886, Bucharest, Romania
Died: November 25, 1972, Bucharest, Romania.
I finally understand one reason why Einstein wrote: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” For I have long questioned: To whom was Einstein referring?
Maybe there are other examples but Henri Marie Coandă, who lived during Einstein’s lifetime, certainly seems to qualify. So thank you for drawing my attention to the Coanda effect which I already knew as the Bernoulli effect/principle.
So thank you answering my question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
I can’t make much sense of this. Sorry. I can only think you may be a victim of the myth that you can understand hydrogen bonding between water molecules without getting rigorous with the underlying quantum mechanics. Maybe this will help:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448&p=128692#p128692
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=255#p122459
” . . . Jet streams are conduits that tunnel through the friction and general incoherence of the gases in the atmosphere . . . “
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
If you remove most of the energy from the atmosphere it would become a layer of liquid N2 and O2 held to the surface of the Earth by gravity. As you add energy the liquids convert to gases. As more energy is added the gases expand against the force of gravity. The hotter the molecules the greater the volume of the atmosphere. It is the kinetic energy of the molecules that creates the atmosphere and gravity is not providing that energy. When the molecules in the atmosphere lose energy (cool) they descend in the atmosphere and are not gaining energy from gravity but losing energy to it.
You do not understand thermodynamics, the universal gas law, or gravity. You have developed your own theory that violates the basic laws of physics and believe it because of your ego. You think you are a genius, everybody knows your an idiot..
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote to Herb: “I can’t think of any simple way to answer these questions that wouldn’t involve me having to educate you in my whole model.”
Neat reversal!! Herb asks you to share your wisdom and you throw the ball back into Herb’s court. I am beginning to believe that you have no complex ‘model’ to explain.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
If you go to (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) and check out the data of this mornings atmospheric sounding at Salem OR made at 4am PST the observed relative humidity is about 95% between 804m and 2157m. At about 7am PST three miles from the launching site of the sounding, a mist could be felt but the tiny droplets could not be seen. From midnight until 7am PST the relative humidity being measured at the airport near the ground was never greater than 83%.
At the end of the sounding data is: Precipitable water [mm] for entire sounding: 37.90.
I assume that this precipitable water is water vapor and we have no idea of how much water vapor had condensed to form the cloud droplets of the cloud observed at the airport at the time the sounding was launched and had been reported since midnight until 7am.
My point is that I am not the only one who is ‘blind’. But I speculate that by studying the data of the atmospheric sounding and the measurements being measured at the local airport and observing the clouds I see and the mist I feel, I am nearly as blind as those who predict the weather of the day and report the weather the weather being observed (temperature, precipitation, wind, and ‘cloud’).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Follow this link:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448&p=128692#p128692
Reply