Meet Zhurong: China names Mars rover after fire god
Image: CNSA/CLEP
China has named its first-ever Mars rover “Zhurong” after an ancient fire god ahead of a landing attempt on the Red Planet in May. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) revealed the name at the sixth China Space Day held in Nanjing on Saturday (April 24).
Zhurong was the most popular of 10 shortlisted names for a public vote that opened in January, and that choice was backed by an expert panel and the CNSA itself.
Going with the fire god is apt, for the Chinese name for Mars, “Huoxing,” literally means “fire star.”
The roughly 530-lb. (240 kilograms) solar-powered Zhurong rover is part of the Tianwen-1 mission, which launched in July 2020 and arrived in orbit around Mars in February.
The Tianwen-1 orbiter has been collecting high-resolution images of Zhurong’s target landing site in Utopia Planitia. The landing attempt is expected in mid-May, according to a senior Chinese space scientist.
The rover carries panoramic and multispectral cameras and instruments to analyze the composition of rocks. Zhurong will also investigate subsurface characteristics with ground-penetrating radar, if all goes according to plan.
See more here: space.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Don’t miss the fact that China and Russia and the United States recognize that they cannot claim to be ‘great’ nations until they can demonstrate their ability to finance and to accomplish great feats of technology.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI readers,
And please notice that this form of competition is much better than having wars to control what other nations and people are doing. Competition is a NATURAL attribute of many, if not, all people.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and other PSI readers,
This article seems to be a reason place to establish a new site of conversation. The link to the previous one is: (https://principia-scientific.com/1600-year-old-new-zealand-tree-can-tell-us-about-our-climate/).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
At the previous conversation site MattH had written: “In the Southern Hemisphere where there are no land masses to mess with the six permanent lows circulating around Antarctica there is often a warm front preceding the cold front.”
Here I ask MattH to go to (https://fever.byrd.osu.edu/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.98,39.98,335) to identify for us, if possible, the latitude and longitude coordinates for each of these six permanent lows on a particular date and and at a particular time so we can see what he sees.
Of course, I have to quote R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966) to make a point.
“It is then not unreasonable to suppose, indeed it could hardly be otherwise, that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth, were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historic sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science. It was, and is, a difficult science to reduce to its basic principles and so to present as a deductive structure, … .“
Why was it ‘a difficult science to reduce to its basic principles’? My answer: They had no observations beyond their very localized experiences.
And only for little more than 5 years we have had the BIG PICTURE presented to us by the Fluid Earth Viewer project. (Ohio State University).
So let us see what MattH drew to our attention without giving us any evidence to see that which he has only described with words.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. My following comment is a little liberal. ““In the Southern Hemisphere where there are no land masses to mess with the six permanent lows circulating around Antarctica there is often a warm front preceding the cold front.”
If you look at the below global map during a Southern Hemisphere winter there is often clearly 6 low pressure systems circulating Antarctica with one system eventually resolving while a new low is developing.
Todays map clearly shows 5 lows ( counting from the left ) when you get to the middle of the Pacific ocean and then there are three lows under South America which could be argued are one complex depression and then there is a less intense low either side of South America which totals 8. It is all a bit messy but at times when the lows are clearly intensely formed like the one below South Africa and the next one centered in the Southern Indian Ocean you usually count six lows. Rule of thumb.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/global/gmslp.000.shtml
Have a nice day. Matt.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
The global map has been updated since my recent comment. Golly, it is a dynamic system.
Without land masses the Southern ocean weather system transports surprisingly quickly.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers,
You have not told us what global map you are ‘watching’. So without knowing this I am reluctant to make a comment. Better define everything you see and how you see it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You have not defined what specific global map you are viewing. So I am reluctant to make any comment. Better define what you are seeing and how.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Same map I referenced four comments above this one.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/global/gmslp.000.shtml
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Matt:
Matt: There are some comments in relation to low pressure weather systems on this item which are not quite correct. A low pressure system is not a cold front although cold fronts are usually associated with a low pressure systems
James: I agree. It’s not as simple as such. For example, in tornado alley we have colder, dry air coming over the rockies and warmer, moist air coming up from the G of M (Gulf of Mexico).
Matt: In the Southern Hemisphere where there are no land masses to mess with the six permanent lows circulating around Antarctica there is often a warm front preceding the cold front .
The warm front is an air mass dragged down from warmer Northern climes whilst the following front is cold air dragged up from the Antarctic or Sub Antarctic. When the following cold front combines with the warm front that becomes an Occluded Front which then becomes the driver of cyclogenesis and a major engine of weather.
James: I would argue that this is consistent with my theory on the origin of storms which involves low pressure vortices that grow along boundaries between cold, dry air and warm, moist air. Moist/dry windshear is the key to vortice growth. The origin of the low pressure that is delievered to the location of the storm is a jet stream, which may be many miles away from the location of the storm (especially when the storm is a hurricane/cyclone.) And these vortices initiate in from a jet stream.
Matt: In a cold occlusion, the cold air mass overtaking the warm front is colder than the cool air ahead of the warm front, and plows under both air masses.
In a warm occlusion, the cold air mass overtaking the warm front is warmer than the cool air ahead of the warm front, and rides over the colder air mass while lifting the warm air.
James: The word “occlusion” means blocking. But is there really any blocking going on or does it just appear as such?
Here is a link to post on my website that discusses some of the same:
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/its-not-what-you-know-that-will-hurt-you/
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Relative to you comment about the Moon. I just noticed the fact that the calendar hanging beside my desk has the phases of moon on it.
Because of your survival activities you use this information about the moon while 99.???% of the world have no interest in what the moon’s phase is today because if appears to have no direct influence upon their lives. But you and a few other people know that it does just as Newton observed that it did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and hopefully PSI Readers,
I take this opportunity to direct your attention to ‘Stonehenge’, of which I believe many have at least heard or read the word. It is ancient site of human activity
I read: “Stonehenge, a circular setting of large standing stones surrounded by an earthwork about 8 mi (13km) N of Salisbury, Wilshire, Eng., was built
during Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age (1800-1400 B.C.). (1968 Britannica) been I have read most scholarly books written about Stonehenge; so I know what has not commonly, if at all, been written about Stonehenge.
Like its first phase was considered to be 56 holes, dug and spaced about one English rod (16.5ft) apart in a near circle. And it seems no one has asked: Why 56 holes???
So, I stop here and ask: Why 56 holes???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers.
Initially I did not see how the Fluid Earth Viewer (FEV) data could have significant validity over the oceans because there was very little to no data being measured near the ocean surface like there is in the case of the Earth’s surfaces. After a little pondering I now see that near ground measurement of the land surface validate the ability to observe, with good precision, near surface air temperatures from the satellites. So I am no longer skeptical of the FEV data–(https://fever.byrd.osu.edu/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.98,39.98,335).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
China should name their rover “NASA”? It appears to be a copy and Mars may soon look like a rover parking lot. China is apparently trying to demonstrate that they can do that too while attempting something new might be too risky of failure. Don’t b surprised if the CCP claims Mars and the moon are actually Chinese territory dating back to the Ming Dynasty.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers,
This is mainly to make get this posting on the recent comments list. However, I do ask again: Why 56 holes?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Mercury has an anomalous property; it is a liquid at the freezing temperature of water and has a vapor pressure at 25C which needs to be taken into account to most precisely measure the atmospheric pressure with the mercury barometer. Can you ‘believe’ (or explain) these two observed facts (liquid and vapor pressure) about the element Mercury?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
I’m not an expert on mercury. But I might be able to assist you in getting a better conceptual grasp on the issue. Mostly it’s important to not let ambiguous terminology lead you to the wrong conclusion. Make sure that you are not confusing a vapor with a gas. A vapor (evaporate) is liquid nanodroplets suspended in an enveloping gas (ie. atmosphere) at a certain pressure/temperature. Many liquids have a vapor pressure and this pressure contributes to the pressure of the surrounding gas (atmosphere.) But the evaporate itself is nanodroplets of liquid. It is not gaseous. This is certainly the case with water. I suspect it is also the case with mercury.
One big clue in regard to Mercury is the fact that it beads up in such perfectly round drops. This is due to high surface tension and suggests that, like water, it is a polar molecule that neutralizes its own polarity collectively with a surface being a situation in which the ability to neutralized its own polarity is reduced.
james McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I’m not sure about your restricting vapor to nano droplets. Many liquid (methanol, butane, gasoline) evaporate.as gases which are identified as vapors of those liquids. The way to tell if a vapor is a gas or a liquid would be by testing to see if it complied with the universal gas law.
Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I just discovered I had made a mistake which disrupted the continuity of James, Herb, and my conversation. I would have preferred that this conversation had continued at (https://principia-scientific.com/climate-alarmists-and-their-biased-models/). But this link will now have to do for anyone who cares of where it started and what the beginning was.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James.
That is an insightful perception of water and mercury.
The three maps I referenced on this and the 1600 year old kauri tree rings gig are all put out by the Australian Bureau Of Meteorology (BOM ) and are the best and clearest maps I have found. BOM do not appear to do a South Atlantic map which means it is not possible to track unusual or significant weather systems in that section of sub Antarctic to equator weather circulation.
In a perfect world BOM would do a combination map of jet stream map overlaying MSLP map.
A successful method would be to show the average height of the Jetstream in yellow, then through green and blue as the jet stream is higher altitude and of course orange through the reds as the jet streams are lower altitude then the average.
The MSLP layer of such a map would simply be in fine black.
In a perfect world Jerry would email all the world’s meteorologists and BOM until someone came up with such a free access global map.
This and the 1600 year tree ring gig has given me more than enough to research, analyse, and cross reference to help me gain possible understanding of fidelity to reality in some spare time. Thank you for your contributions.
Oh, and here is some satire to finish. I had a seance and got talking to Moffin from the spirit world. Moffin is still keen to peer review your work.
Kind regards. Matt
Reply
Jerry. Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
“A vapor (evaporate) is liquid nanodroplets suspended in an enveloping gas (ie. atmosphere) at a certain pressure/temperature.” Purely James’ definition. James, report to us any standard dictionary, or science dictionary, which gives your definition of the word–VAPOR.
Anybody can define any word any way they want, but that does not make their definition an observed fact.
Meteorologist have concludes that the troposphere must contain nano-particles on which surfaces water molecules condense to explain the observation that the troposphere has never been observed to be SUPERSATUARATED with water molecules. Maybe you will claim that liquid water is not composed of water molecules; but instead it is composed of your nanodroplets of water.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James:
A vapor (evaporate) is liquid nanodroplets suspended in an enveloping gas (ie. atmosphere) at a certain pressure/temperature.”
jerry:
Purely James’ definition.
James:
Yes!
Jerry:
James, report to us any standard dictionary, or science dictionary, which gives your definition of the word–VAPOR.
James:
I am a real scientist, Jerry. I’m not a schoolchild, meteorologists or climatologist. As such I would never make the conceptual error of adopting a standard definition unless I was first sure that the definition was devoid of ambiguity and other sources of misthinking that are so common in standard definitions.
Jerry:
Anybody can define any word any way they want, but that does not make their definition an observed fact.
James:
Yes. My point exactly!!!
Jerry:
Meteorologist have concludes that the troposphere must contain nano-particles on which surfaces water molecules condense to explain the observation that the troposphere has never been observed to be SUPERSATUARATED with water molecules.
James:
Meaningless rhetoric. Meteorologists are illiterate on physics and chemistry and, therefore, must depend on physicist and chemist. Physicist and chemist are inextricably confused about water which is plainly evident in the fact that they have failed to resolve the numerous anomalies of H2O. Moreover, Jerry, you seem perfectly confused about what the word “supersaturated” actually means. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Jerry:
Maybe you will claim that liquid water is not composed of water molecules; but instead it is composed of your nanodroplets of water.
James:
Jerry, don’t make the common mistake of confusing your inability to explain with expertise. Your inability to explain is a result of the fact that you are confused, and nothing more.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
What James has ignored in his “Meaningless rhetoric” is that R.C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, wrote (Weather and Climate, 1966): “C.T.R. Wilson, working with his famous expansion cloud chamber, was able to show this quite conclusively late in the late in the last century.” This being: If air is carefully purified by filtering, it will not produce cloud droplets even if cooled by expansion far beyond its normal saturation point or dew point.”
Such observations (experiments) like this is the foundation of what is SCIENCE. Not upon arbitrary fabrications made by Aristotle or you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Expanding a gas does not change the kinetic energy of the molecules just the mass/number of the droplets molecules the thermometer. Without a change of energy there would be no condensation of the water droplets.
You still think the temperature measures the kinetic energy of the gas not the momentum of the gas molecules. The universal gas law is not an equation. It is a statement of the relationship of the macro properties (volume and pressure) of a gas to the properties of its components.
If you open a ball valve between two chambers, one with gas molecules and one a vacuum, the kinetic energy of the molecules doesn’t change just the number of collisions, which causes a lower temperature..
have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
. . . If air is carefully purified by filtering, it will not produce cloud droplets even if cooled by expansion far beyond its normal saturation point or dew point.”
James:
So, just to be clear, you are saying that if all of the particulate is removed from air it is less likely to coagulate or condense into larger droplets. Right? Okay.
I imagine this would especially be true in still air, as we would find in a cloud chamber as the nanodroplets therein would have no force to overcome the natural repulsion of each other’s surface tension. It is probably much less true if the air was moving or turbulent. Regardless, this experiment fails to confirm the widespread superstition that, therefore, clear moist air contains gaseous H2O, assuming that is what you are claiming here jerry. Is this what you are claiming Jerry? If so, this brings up another question, why did you not state such explicitly? Could it be that, like many others, you are trying to keep the back door open so that you can escape the perception that you really are confused?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
James: “So, just to be clear, you are saying that if all of the particulate is removed from air it is less likely to coagulate or condense into larger droplets. Right?”
First, if there are particulates, there are no smaller droplets. And you failed to define “it”. It, if there are no particulates, can only be water molecules which condense when cosmic radiation penetrates the expansion chamber and causes a trail of droplets to form and be observed. This what I generally understand what Wilson’s observed experimental results were. And in the next paragraph Sutcliffe began: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters … .” A one time observation, or ‘many’ observations by a single scientist should have no credibility in SCIENCE. Unfortunately, other scientists cannot test the results of very expensive experiments. But that is not the case here.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
james McGinn
| #
First, if there are particulates, there are no smaller droplets.
Okay.
And you failed to define “it”.
It was the H2O in the cloud chamber.
It, if there are no particulates, can only be water molecules which condense when cosmic radiation penetrates the expansion chamber and causes a trail of droplets to form and be observed.
I disagree. I suspect turbulence can cause the nanodroplets to begin to coagulate into larger droplets.
This what I generally understand what Wilson’s observed experimental results were. And in the next paragraph Sutcliffe began: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters … .” A one time observation, or ‘many’ observations by a single scientist should have no credibility in SCIENCE. Unfortunately, other scientists cannot test the results of very expensive experiments. But that is not the case here.
How about wind shear and the spinning associated with vortices? I don’t see how these experiments tell us anything at all about that.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Your claim–“Without a change of energy there would be no condensation of the water droplets.”–is different than James’ but my response is the same. Droplets were observed to form and no words can change that reproducible fact.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The droplets do not form on the cosmic rays but on its path so it’s not about condensation on a nuclei but a change in the electro/magnetic field that produces these droplets. Your belief is that the water exists as a gas and when the cosmic rays add energy to that gas, it condenses. You don’t want to think about the why or how something happens, the occurrence is all that maters. This is why whenever you are asked a question you respond by looking up what someone else thought, avoiding having to bother with thinking. Yes Jerry, the sun does rise in the east.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: I’m not sure about your restricting vapor to nano droplets. Many liquid (methanol, butane, gasoline) evaporate.as gases which are identified as vapors of those liquids. The way to tell if a vapor is a gas or a liquid would be by testing to see if it complied with the universal gas law.
James : I’m not 100% sure either. I suspect, however, that the same mis-thinking that causes us to conclude H2O vapor is a gas when it is actually a liquid are at play here. All of the things you mentioned are HYDROcarbons. As with water, hydrogen allows for polarity and for self-neutralization of polarity which is why us humans are so confused about the difference between vapor and gas.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Methanol and any aromatic hydrocarbon or one with double bonds would have polarity. The closest non hydrocarbon would be ammonia. The problem is that water is so uniquely freakish that it is hard to find anything to compare it to.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, James, and hopefully PSI Readers,
I cannot quote what you (James or Herb) have not written. However, as either of you wrote about the hydrogen atom and the polarity of a molecule or of hydrogen bonds between certain ‘unique’ molecules, neither of you have referred to the important fact of to which elemental atom of the molecule is the hydrogen atom bonded.
Since both of you tend to question what I write, I ask either of you to explain to PSI Readers of how it is important to which elemental atom the hydrogen atom is bonded. For I am reasonably certain that you both are aware of the answer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Sulfur is the next element in the oxygen family with similar chemical properties. It is a solid while oxygen is a gas. Even though it is heavier when it combines with two hydrogen atoms it becomes a gas with a boiling point of -60 C and a melting point of –87 C. When oxygen (lighter and a gas) combines with two hydrogen atoms it becomes a liquid. The properties of molecules are not just a result of the atoms they are made of.
have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
Herb, you just cited a reason that Pauling did what he did, however, it does not explain fully all that he did. Which I guess I was wrong about you knowing all that he did.
So, I will wait for James to explain (describe) what all Pauling did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
So, I will wait for James to explain (describe) what all Pauling did.
James:
i suppose you are referring to electronegativity differences. This being an artificial concept that Pauling created and introduced. Is this what you are referring to?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Exactly correct!!!
Pauling based his fictitious electronegatives upon observed properties of the compounds in which an element’s atoms were a part
But we need to go back to the Periodic Chart or Periodic Laws of the elements based upon common properties of the compounds of which the element’s atoms were a part.
But historically two chemists came up with the Periodic Chart based upon somewhat two different observed facts. John W. Hill (Chemistry for Changing Times 4th Ed.) wrote: “Several attempts were made to arrange the elements in some sort of systematics fashion. … Mendeleev … published a periodic table of the elements in 1869. His table arranged the elements primarily in order of increasing atomic weight, although in a few cases he placed a slightly heavier before a lighter one. He did this to get elements with similar chemical properties in the same column.” Mendeleev has been shown to be correct and the other who arranged the elements solely on basis of their atomic weights was wrong.
This periodic behavior of the elements was an important consideration in Pauling’s assignment of an element’s fictitious electronegativity. Hence, stated before, the electronegativities were based upon experimental observations but not in a rigorous quantitative manner.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
First, I dislike short lines. Hence this comment is in reference to your comment of May 1, 2021 at 2:51pm.
You asked: “How about wind shear and the spinning associated with vortices? I don’t see how these experiments tell us anything at all about that.”
Last night I had written a long comment to this. But I decided that maybe I should not submit it until I reread it with a fresh mind. And I now know that I have dodged a bullet.
For your question is very, very, very valid and must be pondered!!! And certainly the ELECTRICAL NATURE of MATTER cannot be ignored.
As a CHEMIST I can say that many chemist have an inferiority complex because many of us, like myself, are not a MATHEMATICAL GENIUS. I have a friend who could not get a doctoral degree in PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY because of his lack of mathematical ability. But he was a very, very great employee for the company which employed him because he had other GREAT SKILLS plus CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE.
I believe evidence of chemists’ inferiority complex is that few go into other scientific communities to tell them what they need to know about chemistry. Hence, when I went to my graduate professors of chemistry for help, they told me they didn’t know enough about meteorology (atmospheric science) to help me.
So your question must be answered because it focuses attention upon critical, fundamental issues. But we (you and I at least) need to work together.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
As a CHEMIST I can say that many chemist have an inferiority complex because many of us, like myself, are not a MATHEMATICAL GENIUS. I have a friend who could not get a doctoral degree in PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY because of his lack of mathematical ability. But he was a very, very great employee for the company which employed him because he had other GREAT SKILLS plus CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE.
I believe evidence of chemists’ inferiority complex is that few go into other scientific communities to tell them what they need to know about chemistry. Hence, when I went to my graduate professors of chemistry for help, they told me they didn’t know enough about meteorology (atmospheric science) to help me.
James:
This is it, Jerry. This is the thing itself. This is the reason the bad thinking on water persists. All of science is confused on water and all of science deals with this confusion by way of incorporating work-arounds within their own models within their own disciplines. But these “work-arounds” hold no sway across different disciplines. It is at this point that they (you) will honor an unstated taboo against cross disciplinary investigation. The feelings of inferiority that you felt was this mechanism working in your mind. The reason you are unable to defeat this mechanism is not because you are stupid. It is because you are human.
It is at this point, Jerry, that you have to ask yourself if you want to take the blue pill or the red pill. Nobody can make this decision for you. Just be aware that if you take the red pill there is no turning back.
Jerry:
So your question must be answered because it focuses attention upon critical, fundamental issues. But we (you and I at least) need to work together.
James:
Jerry, do not proceed beyond this point unless you have taken the red pill.
If we are to work together I need you to be clear on the following questions:
1) Are hydrogen bonds weak, as appears to be evident in liquid water?
2) Are hydrogen bonds strong as appears to be evident in ice and the high boiling point of H2O and which appears to be explained by Pauling’s model?
3) Are hydrogen bonds sometime weak and sometimes strong as indicated in the model I presented?
4) And, if they are sometime weak and sometimes strong as indicated in my model what is the mechanism that underlies this variability? Do you agree or disagree with the mechanism presented in my model?
James McGinn / Genius
Speaking of inferiority complexes . . .
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-guy-that-goes-to-buy-a-suit/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and maybe James,
I had concluded this comment with the following paragraph. But I have decided this paragraph should be a Preface to this comment.
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s well known book, wrote (as translated to the English language by Crew and de Salvio, 1914) as a preface to its readers. “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can percept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says. intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” There was a REASON that Elzevir wrote this. Until one understands his purpose in writing these saying, a reader will likely be wasting his/her time reading any further.
There is no such thing as pure NATURAL LIQUID WATER Liquid water is the universal solvent. We know it dissolves the gases nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur. to name a few of what I consider the more significant relative to their possible influences. We know it does many salts like sodium chloride, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride. We know these salts principally dissolve to form ions as we can easily observed the increase of water’s electrical conductivity as we dissolve more and more salt in distilled water. Which might be ‘pure water’ briefly but as soon as it comes into contain with the NATURAL ATMOSPHERE it begins to absorb the gases of the atmosphere and some of the condensation nuclei of the atmosphere. For we have to believe Sutcliffe (Weather&Climate, 1960) who wrote: “The NATURAL ATMOSPHERE is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances [pollens?] which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor.”
We know that there is no question that the water molecule is an electrical dipole which are strongly attracted the cation (positive) ions of a salt dissolved in water and to a lesser extent are attracted to the anion (negative) of a dissolved salt. The reason for this difference of electrical attraction is that the cation is usually significantly smaller that than the anion. So the distance between the cation and polar molecule is less.
Most of us have seen how rapidly water dissolves what we commonly call ‘salt’ (sodium chloride). But I doubt if many of us know that common salt melts at 801C (1474F). So how is it salt dissolves so rapidly in water? My simple answer is: one surface ion at a time and the motion of water molecules are very fast even at room temperature so their collisions with the surface ions of the salt are violent relative to their minute sizes. But it really doesn’t matter how it is salt dissolves; what is important is that it can be seen that the salt does dissolve.
The next thing I have only read, but I believe the people, who have done the experiments, who report that the ‘salt water’ of the oceans continue to get denser as the water is cooled to water’s freezing point. This is contrary to distilled water, which has only dissolved gases and maybe a few condensation nuclei, and which become less dense as the water cooled below about 4C (39F).
This difference in the changing density is important information because we need to conclude that the interaction (attractions) between water molecules reduces the ability of the water molecules to hydrogen bond. After all it was the ion and the water molecule’s electric dipole interaction which allowed the salt to dissolve in the water.
Now, when I read about NATURAL WEATHER I do not commonly read about the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur dissolving in water droplets. This even though acid rain has been an environmental issue for some time. And it is an unquestionable fact that ‘acid’ rain began dissolving limestone rock which had been carved in ancient time and only ‘eroded’ in modern times because of the burning of high sulfur coal in power plants and in cooking and heating stoves.
Sometimes the NATURAL SOURCES of sulfur compounds are considered to be far greater the human produced sulfur oxides which react with water molecules. However, these natural sources of sulfur compounds were occurring in ancient times and it was only in modern times that the problem of acid rain became observable (unquestionable fact). Hence, naturally produced nitrogen oxides which react with water molecules to form acid molecules did cause acid rain which was an observable problem. Of course, we NATURALLY expect every thing to NATURALLY ‘weather’ or ‘wear out’.
My purpose in reviewing a few unquestionable observed facts is that even some of these are not commonly being considered in the present. controversies of the present. And I hope a reader who has read this far knows that we only began to observe the new observed facts about the atmosphere, weather, and climate since WWII despite the volumes which have been written about thousands and even millions of years ago.
And I have decide to conclude with this quote: “The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry Krause.
I found the referenced quick read useful in understanding the mechanism of electric charge stratification in clouds. I had never heard of graupel before.
http://www.weather.gov/jetstream/lightning
Have a jolly day. Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Matt:
This is from a thread I started in Thunderbolts Forum:
Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16597#p117244
Here is a comment from D Archer that I think best captures the thinking therein:
D Archer:
For me , how i knew the water was held in the air because of electric forces (or charge).
Before a thunderstorm you can see the dark clouds, and you say to yourself, it is going to rain soon…. only at/after the moment of the first lightning strike does the rain start to fall (en masse), this means that the lightning is a ‘charge equalizer’, and the water is no longer held/pushed up by this charge force and starts falling.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James.
I appreciate the communication. It takes a lot of cross referencing to sort the chaff from the grain.
Cheers. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
“Storms that fail to produce large quantities of ice usually fail to produce lightning.” From experience I know the thunderstorms which produce much lighting ‘usually’ fail to produce hail. For one seldom sees ‘white’ hail falling from the base of the thundercloud, lighting makes the cloud to be a thundercloud. Usually only the gray of liquid droplets falls from the base.
Next: “Meanwhile, downdrafts transport hail and ice from the frozen upper regions of the storm.” First a mass of redundancies: hail, ice, frozen. Since hail (solid water) falls faster than the downdraft it is not broken into smaller droplets like the water of a waterfall is. From various observations (like that of a waterfall) I conclude that the falling large droplets and hail particles fall faster then the atmosphere through which they fall. Hence, the falling precipitate from the high cold atmosphere is cooling the atmosphere through which is falling. The keyword: falling.
But is is good to do to learn: but the word ‘graupel’ means nothing until it is completely defined (described). And I expect that you maybe had a little idea what was occurring in the upper portions of a thunderclou.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Thank you Jerry. I have only been familiar with MSLP weather maps so I am going through a steep learning curve to comprehend the basics of upper atmosphere.
I have to teach myself to comprehend the Lorentz Law (as well as Maxwell) and ponder whether that has an effect on upper atmospheric dynamics as much as a cold front meeting warmer air and causing an approx ninety degree swing in wind direction to maintain near equal barometric pressure gradients in air pressure before and after a cold front.
Plus I have read a little about Pauling.
Thank you for your patient directing.
Have a nice day Jerry. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Hail is always associated with thunderstorms and comes from cumulonimbus clouds . It is the updrafts in the clouds that lift water and hail higher in the atmosphere allowing the hail stones to grow in size. (largest over 8″ in diameter). When the updrafts stop the rain and hail fall.
There was this fellow named Galileo who did an experiment showing that all objects fall at the same rate, with the only difference being due to wind resistance. Since ice has a greater volume to weight ratio (less dense) than water it should fall slower than the water..
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Especially when it is larger than a golfball, the only way I can envision it forming is if rain-water is sucked up a nearly vertical vortice tube with wind speeds of at least 100 miles an hour. If the tube was not vertical I don’t think the walls (plasma sheath) of the vortice could prevent the hailstone from piercing it. And if it was not going at least 100 mph I can’t imagine there could be enough liquid H2O to get high enough to where it would freeze so completely to remain cold enough to not melt before it hit the ground. Also, hailstones are somewhat rounded and possibly this could be caused by grazing impacts with the vertical walls of the vertical vortice.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
JerrY Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefully PSI Readers,
Herb: “Hail is always associated with thunderstorms and comes from cumulonimbus clouds.”
Either you have never experienced many thunderstorms or what the word ‘hail’ needs to be accurately defined. “Small, roundish lumps of ice precipitated during thunderstorm” (Websters). “precipitate: physics & Meteorol., To condense or become condensed, as vapor, and fall as rain, etc.” (Websters) Confusing, aye. So, I must give my accurate definition of hail. Ice particles larger than sleet particles and more dense than snowflakes that fall to the earth’s surface.
This definition to separate ‘hail’ from the formation of ice from the supercooled water droplets of Cumulus Clouds: “Detached clouds, generally dense and with sharp outlines, developing vertically in the form of rising mounds, domes or towers, of which the bulging upper part often resembles a cauliflower. The sunlit parts of these clouds are mostly brilliant white; their base is relatively dark and nearly horizontal.” (Sutcliffe, Weather & Climate). Cumulonimbus: “Heavy and dense cloud, with a considerable vertical extent, in the form of a mountain or huge towers. At least part of its upper portion is usually smooth, or fibrous or striated, and nearly always flattened; this part ofter spreads out in the shape of an anvil or vast plume. Under the base of this cloud which is often very dark, there are frequently low ragged clouds either merged with it or not, and precipitation sometimes in the form of Virgo.” (Sutcliffe, Weather & Climate). “Virgo: Vertical or inclined trails of precipitation (fallstreaks) attached to the undersurface of a cloud; which do not reach the earth’s surface. This supplementary feature occurs mostly with Cirrocumulus, Altocumulus, Altostratus, Nimbostratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulus, and Cumulonimbus.” (Sutcliffe, Weather & Climate)
This illustrates what ‘accurate definition’ needs to be if we are going to understand the formation of ‘hail’.
We, in Salem OR and surrounding area (region) had supercooled water droplets which felll to the Earth’s surfaces and rapidly froze on the surfaces, forming a layer of ice which broke off branches, snapped trunks, and even tipped over the the entire tree (pulling the roots out of the ground) whose crowns were not symmetrical.
All these supercooled droplets did not necessary freeze instantaneously, but most froze before they dripped from twigs and branches. For Einstein showed us that even light (radiation) has a finite rate of movement.
And Herb the phase transitions from gaseous matter to liquid or solid matter or the phase transition from liquid matter to solid matter do had ‘latent heats’ associated with these phase transitions.
I repeat: this illustrates what ‘accurate definition’ needs to be if we are going to understand the formation of ‘hail’ (with the addition) and other NATURAL PHENOMENA associated with weather and climate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Jerry,
Sleet is frozen precipitation in the form of ice. It occurs when rain enters a cold air mass and is frozen while it descends, as opposed to snow which occurs as frozen precipitation that has not been water droplets.
Freezing rain, that coats objects with ice, is not from supercooled water but from water precipitation striking a surface that is well below 0C . Supercooled water (which only happens to pure still water) does not occur in the atmosphere where there is turbulence and nuclei in the water..
Hail is ice particles formed in warm weather in thunderstorms unlike sleet, snow, or frozen rain.
It would help your definitions if you knew what you were talking about.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the response.
Jerry:
Historically two chemists came up with the Periodic Chart based upon somewhat two different observed facts. John W. Hill (Chemistry for Changing Times 4th Ed.) wrote: “Several attempts were made to arrange the elements in some sort of systematics fashion. … Mendeleev … published a periodic table of the elements in 1869. His table arranged the elements primarily in order of increasing atomic weight, although in a few cases he placed a slightly heavier before a lighter one. He did this to get elements with similar chemical properties in the same column.” Mendeleev has been shown to be correct and the other who arranged the elements solely on basis of their atomic weights was wrong.
James:
You mention how Mendeleev improved the periodic table by taking into account observations that others had failed to consider. I am doing the same for our understanding of hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules. As I’ve explained previously, when Pauling described the polarity of the H2O molecule he had tunnel vision. He was ignoring a lot of observational evidence. He was trying to describe the high boiling/condensing temperature/pressure and the high freezing/melting temperature of H2O. And that was all he was trying to describe. Consequently, Pauling’s model fails to describe very low viscosity of liquid water, unexplained consistency in the viscosity in liquid water despite differences in temperature of liquid water, high heat capacity of liquid water, sensitivity of its boiling temperature to changes in pressure, surface tension, becoming less dense upon freezing which allowed ice to float on water, superchilled water, and other characteristics that did the opposite of what is found in most substances. We referred to these properties as anomalies because they are completely unpredicted by and unexplained by Pauling’s model.
To simplify all of this let’s just say that whereas Pauling’s model successfully accounted for the strength of hydrogen bonds in the transition between the liquid phase and the gaseous phase (to describe high boiling/condensing temperature) and the transition between the liquid phase and the solid phase (to describe high freezing/melting temperature) his model fails to account for the weakness of hydrogen bonds in the liquid phase and the consistency of this weakness of throughout the full temperature range of the liquid phase (and other quirky observations).
So, Pauling’s model fails to account for the variability of strength that is plainly evident in a more comprehensive review of the observationsl evidence of H2O. I know what Pauling’s error was and have previously described it to you. Pauling mistakenly assumed that the attractive forces that exist between H2O molecules are caused by the asymmetry or lopsidedness of the arrangement of the H2O molecule’s hydrogen atoms relative to its oxygen atom. In contrast, with my model it is assumed that these polar forces are the result of the lopsided or asymmetric way the H2O molecule’s various electrical gradients are arranged relative to its three sets of nuclei, which itself is the result of the lopsided asymmetric way the H2O molecule’s covalently attached hydrogen atoms are arranged relative to its oxygen atom.
There is, however, one additional point you have to take into account in order to realize the superiority of my model relative to Pauling’s model. With my model the arrangement of electrical gradients that determines an H2O molecule’s polar attractive force is not limited to the electrical gradients produced by the H2O molecule’s own atoms. In stark contrast to the standard model, with my model this attractive force is also determined by the electrical gradients coming from any adjacent H2O molecules with which it shares hydrogen bonds. In other words, in my model, this attractive force is determined by the SYMMETRY/ASYMMETRY OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE NET SUM OF ELECTRICAL GRADIENTS coming from the H2O molecule itself and from any adjacent H2O molecules with which it shares hydrogen bonds.
Now we know what the problem has been all along. The problem is the oversimplified model that was introduced to us by Linus Pauling back in the 1950s. And now we also know what was the cause of Pauling’s error, tunnel vision that caused him to only consider certain observations and ignore others as he developed his model. With respect to which it is important to keep in mind that he was not completely mistaken. The supposition that asymmetry was the cause of the polar force seen in H2O is fundamentally correct. But Pauling focussed on the wrong causal factor–the wrong asymmetry. It isn’t the symmetry/asymmetry of the atoms of the molecule that matters. It’s the symmetry/asymmetry of all of the electrical gradients–the net sum of electrical gradients–-relative to its nuclei that matters. And this includes the electrical gradients from adjacent H2O molecules. When all of this is taken into consideration we arrive at a model that actually produces predictions that correspond with what is actually observed. Now, through my superior model, we can describe why/how hydrogen bonds are sometimes strong and sometimes weak.
Jerry:
This periodic behavior of the elements was an important consideration in Pauling’s assignment of an element’s fictitious electronegativity. Hence, stated before, the electronegativities were based upon experimental observations but not in a rigorous quantitative manner.
James:
Right. Electronegativity was formulated by Pauling as a means of giving students a simple way of applying his model. But, as you seem to realize, it didn’t change the fact that his model was fundamentally mistaken. Although his model helped us get a grasp on the transition between solid and liquid and gas and liquid it revealed even deeper mysteries about the liquid phase and my model resolves these deeper mysteries.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James.
Something I thunked up ( thought of ) the other day. With katabatic cold winds falling back to earth that could act like a siphon effect of drawing air, including water, high into the atmosphere contrary to the normal rules of physics.
Possibly another contributory factor.
Cheers Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Wonderful, wonderful!!!
How would you explain the polar vortexes. My mother had a wash tub with a drain in its center. When she drained the water a vortex formed as the water at the top first drained from the tub. I read that it is commonly known that atmosphere is well mixed (except for water molecules which they obviously do not consider) up to near the top of the mesosphere.
Ponder it!!! In the north Polar Region its just cold air masses moving toward the lower latitudes. Something has to replace it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I think the only way to describe any strong, gust , swirling or directed winds on our planet you need tubes or conduits as we see with vortices. I think katabatic winds are winds that are exiting vortices. This same phenomena pushes jet streams.
The notion that katabatic winds are caused by gravity is pretty ridiculous.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James
The below referenced site has a very good photograph of cloud in a katabatic wind falling like water over a waterfall. The basic first principle. Observation.
http://www.whatisguide.net/0128-katabatic-winds.html
Cheers. Matt
Reply
WhoKoo
| #
The photo clearly shows there are no vortices involved in photo and also appears to debunk Matt’s idea on the fall of katabatic winds siphoning up air.
MattH
| #
Get outside Whokoo. And stay off the computer. Bloody chocolate Labradors!!!
James McGinn
| #
Katabatic winds are from the exit end of a tube/vortice. The physics involves are the same physics involved with tornadoes and all vortices. Gravity isn’t the force that moves the air.
MattH
| #
Hi James.
The wind in your referenced video is not katabatic wind but wind rolling on the lee side of a hill. In effect, end over end cartwheels.
Cheers Matt.
James McGinn
| #
Matt: The wind in your referenced video is not katabatic wind but wind rolling on the lee side of a hill. In effect, end over end cartwheels.
James: Cartwheels require centrifugal force which is impossible to conceive for something comprised of gas. It’s even more difficult to imagine than gravity. The only way to get that kind of velocity is for the coherence of the flow to be isolated over long distances, as we can envision in tubes/vortices.
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers,
Take a look a this link (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=ant&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2021&MONTH=05&FROM=0300&TO=0300&STNM=89009)
See the temperature inversion. Ponder Ozone Hole. The South Pole station is not always available and neither is the weather balloon site at the top of Greenland. Ponder what causes an inversion. You’ll work it out.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully other PSI Readers,
Thank you, James, for causing me to read and study the details of what Pauling wrote in Chapter 12—The Hydrogen Bond—in his book ‘The Nature of the Chemical Bond’ 3rd Ed., 1960. In 12-4 (Ice and Water; Clathrate Compounds) the caption of Fig, 12-6 is: “The arrangement of molecules in the ice crystal. The orientation of the water molecules, as represented in the drawing is arbitrary; there is one proton along each oxygen-oxygen axis, closer to one of the other of the two oxygen.”
In the text Pauling wrote: The ice structure is, however just that expected in case O—H~ ~O hydrogen bonds are formed, with each bond making greater or less use of on the four valence electron pairs of each of the two bonded atoms.^45.” 45: “It has been found (H. Konig, Z. Krist, 105, 270 [1944]) that water vapor condenses at very low temperatures to produce a cubic modification of ice, closely similar to ordinary ice, but like sphalerite. (Fig. 7-5) rather than wurtzite.”
“The question now arises as to whether a given hydrogen atom is midway the two oxygen atoms it connects or closer to one than the other. The answer is that (with few exceptions) each oxygen atom has two hydrogen atoms bonded to it by strong bonds.” Pauling then supplies more references to support this conclusion. But in the same paragraph writes something which I consider might explain the different natural ice crystals which have been observed. For Pauling wrote: “Thus we assume that an ice crystal can exist in any one of a large number of configurations, each corresponding to certain orientations of the water molecules. It can change from one configuration to another by rotation of some of the molecules or by motion of the hydrogen nuclei, each moving 0.76 Angstroms (A) from a position of 1.00 A from one oxygen atom to the similar position near the other bonded atom.^55”.
55”The protons will tend to jump in this way in groups, so as to leave each oxygen atom with two protons attached; ice is so similar to water that we are assured that the concentrations of (OH)^- and (H3O)^+ present in ice are very small.”
56”At the April 1937 meeting of the American Chemical Society at Chapel Hill, North Carolin, L. Onsager reported that values of the dielectric constant calculated for this model agree approximately with experiment.”
James and PSI Reader, I only review what Pauling wrote so that can see the difference between what James (you) wrote and what Pauling wrote. Pauling, as a SCIENTIST, that we can only be certain about with reproducibly observed or measured and when scientists are observing ‘lengths’ of tenths of an Angstrom, we must take this fact into account also.
Oh yes, Pauling refers to ‘van der Waal’ bond between atoms of adjacent atoms. Hence, Pauling does consider the electrons of neighboring molecule’s atoms not part of a hydrogen bond. At least that seems what you have criticized Pauling for not considering.
James, the bottom line is that you often do not seem uncertain of the validity of any part of your theory (model, understanding. Pauling does.admit to limits of observations and understanding.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
James, the bottom line is that you often do not seem uncertain of the validity of any part of your theory (model, understanding. Pauling does admit to limits of observations and understanding.
Have a good day, Jerry
Pauling is not being a scientist here, Jerry, he is being a priest. This passage has all the authoritative pretense and deliberate obscurity of scripture. This is nothing but a string of rhetorical tactics designed to create so much confusion in the mind of the reader that they won’t dare to challenge it’s authoritativeness.
Pauling states, “The ice structure is, however just that expected in case O—H~ ~O hydrogen bonds are formed, . . .” He preceded to tell us what is, “expected.” And makes some statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the model he had developed that described the H2O molecule as a polar molecule. He is being deceptive. And the reason why is obvious, jerry. According to his model ice should be highly ordered and considerably more dense than liquid water which is obviously not what is actually observed. (Also, his model predicts the transition between liquid and solid should be gradual when in actuality the transition is sudden, discreet.)
The fact that ice is less dense than liquid water (and the fact that the transition is sudden and not gradual) is blatant evidence that his model of water had failed badly. Consequently, the only chance Pauling had for his model to be accepted was to create the illusion that he had some kind of deep understanding and otherwise depend on the fact that everybody was just a confused as was he himself. Pauling conned us.
James McGinn / Genius
Hydrogen Bonding As The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity: A Unique Perspective On The Transition Between The Liquid And Solid States Of Water
https://zenodo.org/record/37224
Reply
James McGinn
| #
When you open your mind to confusion, confusion never hesitates to enter.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
James: “When you open your mind to confusion, confusion never hesitates to enter”
So, James, are you advising PSI Readers and myself to stop reading what you write???
It is true that you and Herb sometimes confuse me and I prove this by what I sometimes mistakingly write.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and hopefully PSI Readers,
James, when are you going to cite (reference) any measured (by yourself or others) to support your unique “understanding”? Plus, a scientific theory must not only explain what the theory is proposed to explain but it must also propose an observation that has not yet to common knowledge been made. This provide as test for any proposed scientific theory.
Example: The idea of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (GHE) proposes (predicts) that the temperatures of the Earth’s troposphere would be about 33C (58F) degrees lower if not for the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Hence, the many, many measurements (made at the same location and time) of the troposphere ‘s temperature and its dew point temperature absolutely prove the GHE to be wrong. For the troposphere’s temperature has never been measured to be less than the troposphere’s dew point temperature. And clearly, the dew point temperature has nothing to do with carbon dioxide molecules concentration; instead the dew point temperature has to do with the atmosphere’s water molecule concentration.
And Herb, thank you again for providing a context to repeat what I have written before.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
As a CHEMIST I can say that many chemist have an inferiority complex because many of us, like myself, are not a MATHEMATICAL GENIUS. I have a friend who could not get a doctoral degree in PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY because of his lack of mathematical ability. But he was a very, very great employee for the company which employed him because he had other GREAT SKILLS plus CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE.
I believe evidence of chemists’ inferiority complex is that few go into other scientific communities to tell them what they need to know about chemistry. Hence, when I went to my graduate professors of chemistry for help, they told me they didn’t know enough about meteorology (atmospheric science) to help me.
James:
This is it, Jerry. This is the thing itself. This is the reason the bad thinking on water persists. All of science is confused on water and all of science deals with this confusion by way of incorporating work-arounds within their own models within their own disciplines. But these “work-arounds” hold no sway across different disciplines. It is at this point that they (you) will honor an unstated taboo against cross disciplinary investigation. The feelings of inferiority that you felt was this mechanism working in your mind. The reason you are unable to defeat this mechanism is not because you are stupid. It is because you are human.
It is at this point, Jerry, that you have to ask yourself if you want to take the blue pill or the red pill. Nobody can make this decision for you. Just be aware that if you take the red pill there is no turning back.
Jerry:
So your question must be answered because it focuses attention upon critical, fundamental issues. But we (you and I at least) need to work together.
James:
Jerry, do not proceed beyond this point unless you have taken the red pill.
If we are to work together I need you to be clear on the following questions:
1) Are hydrogen bonds weak, as appears to be evident in liquid water?
2) Are hydrogen bonds strong as appears to be evident in ice and the high boiling point of H2O and which appears to be explained by Pauling’s model?
3) Are hydrogen bonds sometime weak and sometimes strong as indicated in the model I presented?
4) And, if they are sometime weak and sometimes strong as indicated in my model what is the mechanism that underlies this variability? Do you agree or disagree with the mechanism presented in my model?
James McGinn / Genius
Speaking of inferiority complexes . . .
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-guy-that-goes-to-buy-a-suit/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers,
As I said before I like long lines, so this comment is in reference to your comments of May 4 at 6:31pm relative to WhoKoo’s earlier comment at 8:02am. “The photo clearly shows there are no vortices involved in photo.”
When you later wrote: “The wind in your referenced video is not katabatic wind but wind rolling on the lee side of a hill. In effect, end over end cartwheels.”, you clearly on a roll (pun intended). For there is a vortex but it is a horizontal vortex.
I read that the Scandinavian meteorologists (atmospheric scientists) ponder what they term: the boundary layer. As I sought its definition I found one needs to look for atmospheric boundary layer or planetary boundary layer or frictional boundary layer in the textbooks I use for reference. And the term ‘frictional boundary layer’ is the most descriptive. For it is the friction of the Earth’s surfaces which ‘rolls’ the wind blowing over it just as you described. Now a part of the ‘boundary layer’s definition which I found quite interesting is that the thickness of the boundary layer is considered to be up to one kilometer. And I read in one text: “This relationship between wind and pressure is often called Buys-Ballot’s law, after the Dutch meteorologist Christoph Buys-Ballot (1817-1890).” (C. Donald Ahrens, ‘Meteorology Today’ 9th Ed.)
I guess Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966) was wrong when he wrote: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” But haven’t we all been wrong once or twice???
Have good a day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Scientists are competitive and want to be first with an new idea. While I doubt this is really the first the following has been considered, but given what I haven’t read, it could have been forgotten. Consider two parcels (tiny masses) of atmosphere moving past each other in different directions. Now consider a calm parcel (boundary layer) between them. So by friction they simply create a dust devil (vortex).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Scientists are competitive and want to be first with an new idea.
James:
No they aren’t. They are mostly dull witted and complacent and want only to pick up a paycheck.
Jerry:
While I doubt this is really the first the following has been considered, but given what I haven’t read, it could have been forgotten. Consider two parcels (tiny masses) of atmosphere moving past each other in different directions. Now consider a calm parcel (boundary layer) between them. So by friction they simply create a dust devil (vortex).
James:
Yes, you are right Jerry. But you are missing a few important details. Moreover you will never arrive at the right answer because you have a moronic understanding of H2O.
Firstly, you are talking about wind shear. Yes, wind shear is highly correlated with severe weather, both tornadoes and hurricanes.
Secondly, it is not just wind shear but moist/dry wind shear that is important. So, one body of air must be moist (and is, therefore, usually warmer and lower) and the other must be dry (and is, therefore, usually colder and coming down from above?
Why does it matter that one body of air must be moist and the other dry? Well, if you maintain the moronic understanding of H2O that was introduced to us by Linus Pauling you have zero chance of ever figuring it out. However, if you breakthrough to a more sophisticated understanding of hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules like the one I propose you about have to be moron to not figure it out.
This explains it all:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / G-E-N-ius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
In the early 1990s I attended a national JPL meeting at the Johnson Space Center. There I met a scientist from Europe who studied dust devils and was studying those that occurred on the Mar’s surface. And he stated that Europe did not have any observed dust devil phenomenon. Which I didn’t really understand at the time because I ‘thought’ (which is code for I don’t know) Spain (I have never been there) seemed to be similar to where I had seen dust devils in North America.
I now question if the formation of dust devils do not require large areas of level uniform surfaces so there cannot be any significant influence of ‘gravity’ upon the slight breezes of the small parcels. Like a dry lake bottom.
Now I recognize that ‘water spouts’ are not tornados but only a wet dust devil of larger size and strength. And obviously a water surface is quite ‘level’ when any wind is weak.
Do you see what I am getting at and maybe add to it?? Steeper downslope surface has gravity ‘driven’ winds what are mainly in the same direction. And it seems a dust devil requires two nearly opposing breezes.
This seems a good discussion topic.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
There is no such thing as a gravity driven wind. If such a thing was possible we would expect to see clouds dropping out of the sky like bricks. This is because it is completely indisputable that the weight per volume of clouds is greater than that of the clear moist air surrounding the cloud. And this is because clouds obviously have greater droplet sizes than does the clear moist air in its vicinity. So the widespread belief that gravity has a dramatic effect on the up/down movement of air in our atmosphere is superstition.
Why do people believe such obvious superstition. Well, because generally people are lazy minded and will believe anything an expert says is true. So why do the experts, meteorologists, say that gravity drives winds? Well, partly it is because they are completely perplexed and don’t want to appear ignorant. Mostly it is because the true mechanism of winds in earth’s atmosphere requires a sophisticated understanding of water and physicist and chemists completely dropped the ball when it comes to understanding the capabilities of water in earth’s atmosphere:
https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/why-water-is-weird/
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Pauling’s model fails to account for the variability of strength that is plainly evident in the observational evidence of H2O. Pauling mistakenly assumed that the attractive forces that exist between H2O molecules are caused by the asymmetry or lopsidedness of the arrangement of the H2O molecule’s hydrogen atoms relative to its oxygen atom. In actuality these polar forces are the result of the lopsided or asymmetric way the H2O molecule’s various electrical gradients are arranged relative to its three sets of nuclei, which itself is the result of the lopsided asymmetric way the H2O molecule’s covalently attached hydrogen atoms are arranged relative to its oxygen atom.
There is, however, one additional point you have to take into account. With this model the arrangement of electrical gradients that determines an H2O molecule’s polar attractive force is not limited to the electrical gradients produced by the H2O molecule’s own atoms. Instead this attractive force is also determined by the electrical gradients coming from any adjacent H2O molecules with which it shares hydrogen bonds. In other words, with this model, this attractive force is determined by the SYMMETRY/ASYMMETRY OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE NET SUM OF ELECTRICAL GRADIENTS coming from the H2O molecule itself and from any adjacent H2O molecules with which it shares hydrogen bonds.
Now we know the cause of Pauling’s error, tunnel vision. The supposition that asymmetry was the cause of the polar force seen in H2O is fundamentally correct. But Pauling focused on the wrong causal factor–the wrong asymmetry. It is not the symmetry/asymmetry of the atoms of the molecule that matters. It’s the symmetry/asymmetry of all of the electrical gradients–the net sum of electrical gradients–-relative to its nuclei that matters. And this includes the electrical gradients from adjacent H2O molecules. Now we can describe why/how hydrogen bonds are sometimes strong and sometimes weak.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Part of, the problem is that because an atom is surrounded by electrons people think it has a uniform negative electric charge. This is not the case. Because the nucleus is emitting a positive electric field the strength of the negative field changes depending on the orientation of atoms to each other. The positive field weakens the negative field between a two atom molecule where the atoms are face to face but in a molecule with more than two atoms the strength of the negative electric field varies across the molecule, especially if there is a significant difference in sizes of the atoms. This causes differences in molecules with similar electron structures. Oxygen and sulfur have the same outer electron structure but when you combine two hydrogen atoms with the gas oxygen it becomes liquid while combining two hydrogen atoms with the solid sulfur produces a gas.
It is the variations of the electric fields of molecules that allow electromagnetic waves, of different lengths, to align with the molecule transferring energy between the molecules and the electromagnetic field surrounding it.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Part of, the problem
What problem?
is that because an atom is surrounded by electrons people think it has a uniform negative electric charge.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you give us an example of a non-uniform electric charge?
This is not the case.
what is not the case?
Because the nucleus is emitting a positive electric field the strength of the negative field changes depending on the orientation of atoms to each other.
Again, I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you give an example?
The positive field weakens the negative field between a two atom molecule
I tlhink you are very confused. I also think the basis of your confusion is that you have no understanding of VSPER theory and the associated concept regarding the steric number of an atom and how the steric number and VSPER theory determine the position electrons relativve to each other. It is this that causes H2O (and ammonia and HF) to have an underlying tetrahedral arrangement to their electrons relative to each other and, consequently, you are unable to comprehend the concept of polarity. So, you are confused by all of this. You don’t really understand what it means to be polar
(And, I suppose, it doesn’t help that Linus Pauling screwed up and gave us a flawed understanding that leaves us believing polarity is static when in actuality it is dynamic..)
where the atoms are face to face but in a molecule with more than two atoms the strength of the negative electric field varies across the molecule, especially if there is a significant difference in sizes of the atoms.
This is polarity. You are confused. And if we combine this with the fact that you are completely ignorant of steric number and how it determines the relative position of electrons then I can begin to understand why you once stated (to my complete amazement) that H2O is a linear molecule. Do you still maintain this fallacy?
This causes differences in molecules with similar electron structures. Oxygen and sulfur have the same outer electron structure but when you combine two hydrogen atoms with the gas oxygen it becomes liquid while combining two hydrogen atoms with the solid sulfur produces a gas.
Vague. You have managed to confuse yourself
James McGinn / Genius
It is the variations of the electric fields of molecules that allow electromagnetic waves, of different lengths, to align with the molecule transferring energy between the molecules and the electromagnetic field surrounding it.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
An object will radiate forces in all directions. In the case of matter these are positive electric force from a proton and a negative electric force from an electron. When an electron comes close to a proton it is attracted to it and the radiated force becomes a directional internal force pulling the two together. This decreases the radiated force and when the two combine to form a neutron the result is very little radiated positive and negative electric fields. The fact that a neutron radiates both a weak positive and negative electric field is shown by that when a neutron is not in the protective field of a nucleus its movement through a magnetic field will cause it to decompose into an electron, a proton, and a gamma ray. The electron and proton will have the same radiated electric fields that had before combining while the gamma ray is the release of the internal energy.
The whole modern model of the atom with electron shells is nonsense. It starts with the idiotic assumption that the atom does not exist in a magnetic field. Hydrogen with one electron in orbit has a magnetic field which is utilized by MRI scanners. The electrons orbiting in helium, lithium, and beryllium would add to the strength of the magnetic field (greater current). The idea that this magnetic field somehow magically disappears as more electrons and protons are added and become shells of probability is an assumption that makes meteorologist look reasonable.
The atom and the structures they form are determined by the radiated magnetic and electric forces and these force will try to move to an equilibrium where they are balanced. For a water molecule the repelling force of the electrons of the hydrogen atoms will cause them to be position on opposite sides of the oxygen atom. This position causes the magnetic field of the molecule, s-N-s, to distort while at the same time the electron field of the hydrogen atoms causes a greater negative electric field over the oxygen atom. It is the distortion of the fields from the molecule as a whole, not the atoms, that creates the properties of water.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The idea that this magnetic field somehow magically disappears as more electrons and protons are added and become shells of probability is an assumption that makes meteorologist look reasonable.
The atom and the structures they form are determined by the radiated magnetic and electric forces and these force will try to move to an equilibrium where they are balanced. For a water molecule the repelling force of the electrons of the hydrogen atoms will cause them to be position on opposite sides of the oxygen atom. This position causes the magnetic field of the molecule, s-N-s, to distort while at the same time the electron field of the hydrogen atoms causes a greater negative electric field over the oxygen atom. It is the distortion of the fields from the molecule as a whole, not the atoms, that creates the properties of water.
James:
Herb, I gave you some advice and you ignored it, as I knew you would.
You need to understand the tetrahedral template of electron location for Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorene and even Neon. I pointed you toward VSPeR theory and Steric numbers. Until you understand this you have no chance of understanding polarity and the reversal of polarity that brings us the unusual characteristics evident in H2O and other polar molecules. Stop wasting your time and follow my advice.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The p and d electron shells are based on the belief that the atom does not exist in or have a magnetic field. In a magnetic field an electron will move in a path perpendicular to the magnetic field so unless you create a new physics (quantum ) where you can ignore the observed behavior of electrons, electrons will be in orbits, just as planets in solar systems or solar systems in galaxies.
Your theory theory is based on the number of electrons an element has but ignores the fact that some elements, like iron, can have avalanche of 2 or 3 or that in a benzene ring there is 1.5 bonds between carbon atoms.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have no idea if anyone beside MattH, James, and Herb are reading what we ‘four’ are commonly writing. But I hope there are at least a few others who read what we write. For our discussions are a important part of the process termed SCIENCE.
Via email MattH has informed me that, because of his occupation, he was not going to be able to share his thoughts with me for more than a week. But I believe he will not object to sharing with you what he also wrote relative to the cloud rolling down a long slope a long time ago.
MattH wrote: “I do need to reply to James McGinn’s … reply to me pointing out a rolling wind (end over end) on the lee side of a hill is not a katabatic wind. I have been out at sea windsurfing when the wind has swung so that I was in a lee shore rolling wind. The hill I was behind is over 700 meters high where James highest hill in the area referenced is around 450 meters high. It was some hours after dark before I successfully rescued myself and so I spent days figuring out what happened. A rolling wind on a lee shore. 5 to seven knot breeze with sudden gusts in excess of thirty knots then back to a breeze again. Before the wind swung to be coming over Mt. Karioi it was a steady 18 knots off the sea.“
Clearly MattH was in a hurry to share this with me and I hope any PSI Reader can understand him despite some of his errors which usually are not as common as mine.
To MattH’s email I replied: “”The only source of knowledge is experience,” (Einstein) …
My experience was when my father, brother and I were out in the field (eastern South Dakota)doing something (i cannot remember what) and we saw a dark (black) cloud on the southern horizon coming toward us maybe 5 to 10 miles away. So thinking it was a cloud with strong winds we headed for home nearly a mile away. And on the way, my father remarked that even during the dirty 30s he had never seen a cloud like it. Now a fact was that when the cloud ‘rolled’ through the wind was not especially strong, nor was the dust NOT especially dense and greatly limiting visibility like a blizzard. But I do not know where the ‘rolling dust cloud began.
Except, until this discussion I did not know exactly how it might have started. But I also know that the rolling ‘dust’ cloud that I experienced has been seen in the Phoenix, Arizona area during the past several years because they are rare enough to make the TV news. And these clouds of dust have a name which I don’t remember just now.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
MattH wrote: “I do need to reply to James McGinn’s … reply to me pointing out a rolling wind (end over end) on the lee side of a hill is not a katabatic wind.
James:
It’s common knowledge that on the leeward side of flow the flow is more chaotic. Matt was making the usual superstitious claims about winds being causes by gravity. Read back through the thread before you respond. This thread is already much more confusing that it should be.
Also, read this and cut it out with the dimwitted cliche’s about personal experience.
Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmospher
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16430
Read this thread carefully and be aware that you can’t understand the plasma of my model until you reject Pauling’s absurdity and realize the correct model of hydrogen bonding of water.
James McGinn / Genius
“In 1967 Edward D. Lorenz did some calculations and came to the conclusion that there should be a lot more friction in the atmosphere than there appeared to actually be.”
Reply