Water Is Not Becoming A Gas When Evaporating
The dictionary (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) defines evaporation as #1 “to pass off in vapor or in invisible minute particles”
Water evaporating from the surface of the Earth is not becoming a gas but minute particles.
A water phase chart, where the state (solid, liquid, gas) of water at different temperatures and pressures are represented, shows that the gas phase of water does not occur below its boiling point at sea level.
As pressure decreases, with increasing altitude, the boiling point decreases but nowhere on Earth or in the troposphere does the boiling point fall within the temperature range experienced at these altitudes.
It does not become a gas. A tea kettle demonstrates that it does not happen.
When heating water, the water in the air first appears as water droplets. In order to convert the liquid into an invisible gas you must raise the temperature to 100 C then add another 540 calories/gram.
The water emerges from the tea kettle as an invisible gas producing a whistle that indicates it is boiling. If you remove it from the heat the boiling and whistle stop. The invisible gas quickly becomes visible water droplets on escaping the tea kettle and cooling.
The droplets continue to cool but then again disappear. They are not becoming a gas. It cannot be that you must add energy to the water in the tea kettle to form a gas and when the water cools it is again becoming a gas.
That would mean the water has two boiling points and the water somehow exceeds the lower boiling point reaching the higher boiling point to become a gas.
Sublimation is where matter converts from a solid state to a gas state without first converting to a liquid. Mothballs are an example of this happening but it also happens with water where ice and snow disappear without ever converting to a liquid.
Energy from the sun is being added to the ice crystals but the added energy does not produce heat adding the 80 calories/gram needed to convert ice into liquid water. The energy added is altering the crystal structure of the ice and this new form is removing the energy causing it to become airborne.
A water molecule is composed of a oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Because of the greater size of the oxygen atom, the electrons of the hydrogen atoms are shifted towards the oxygen atom giving the molecule a negative charge on the oxygen atom and a positive charge on the hydrogen atoms.
As a single molecule gas the electric forces will make the molecule linear where the hydrogen atoms are on the opposite sides of the oxygen atom.
When the molecules are close together, in a liquid or solid state, the attraction between the negative charged oxygen atom of one molecule will attract the hydrogen atoms of a neighboring molecule causing it to assume an arc shape.
In a liquid this will cause the water molecules to join together forming a chain where, like the links of a chain, the molecules are perpendicular. With the addition of more molecules the negative charge at the end of the chain will increase (like the voltage of batteries increasing as they form a line) while the positive charge will be on the outer shell of the hydrogen atoms forming the chain.
When the chain gets long enough the negative charge at the end is able to pull a hydrogen ion from a water molecule, splitting the water molecule. The pH of water is due to this splitting of water into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions.
The strong positive charge of the hydrogen ion will attract the negative charge of oxygen atoms of water molecules. This will produce a new structure in the water of 2H-O-+-O-H2 with a ninety degree twist between the water molecules, just like in the chain of water molecules.
This structure will create a larger positively charged ion around the proton.
The OH- hydroxyl ion will also combine with the positive hydrogen atoms of water molecules forming a chain of O\H/O\H/O\H/O\H …- that will create a shell around the 2H-O-+-O=H2+ ions. This creates a crystal with a positive charge liquid center surrounded by a negatively charged shell.
It is this negatively charged shell that causes this crystal to separate from the liquid water or ice crystals.
As the new crystals absorbs more IR energy its negative outer charge increases causing
the crystal to rise in the atmosphere, being repelled by the negative charge on the Earth’s surface. It is the electrical repelling force that overcomes the force of gravity keeping the heavier crystal in the atmosphere.
If you look at clouds in the sky they seem to have a flat bottom. There are dimples on the bottom surface that remain the same as the cloud moves in the atmosphere. These characteristics would not happen if it was a wind or updraft keeping the water droplets aloft.
If it were an updraft keeping the clouds aloft when the sky became overcast and the air under it cooled, why wouldn’t the clouds descend in the atmosphere?
The reason the charge on the Earth changes from negative to positive under thunder clouds is because the negative charge of the water crystals repels electrons on the surface. Positive charges are contained in the nucleus of atoms and do not move.
When the liquid water crystals approach the top of the troposphere they reach their second melt point. The crystal’s shell begins to melt freeing electrons. These free electrons remain on the crystal due to the positive charge of the liquid center.
When the shell is finally breached the electrons combine with the interior protons converting the crystal back into liquid water and releasing the absorbed energy back into space as heat. When neutralization occurs the negative charge keeping the electrons on the Earth’s surface from under the cloud disappears causing them to surge back under the cloud.
This creates lightning, as they travel to the clouds, which now have a more positive charge than the surface.
The free electrons from the surface (N2, O2, Argon, CO2, and H2O do not release free electrons.) will then arc to other clouds and to the surface.
Water in the atmosphere never becomes a single molecule gas with a molecular weight of 18.
If it did, instead of it being confined to the troposphere, it would escape into the higher atmosphere just as neon (mw 20) does.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
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.
Herb Rose
| #
After writing this I found another anomaly that needs to be explained.
When water condenses producing fog, the level CO2 in the atmosphere significantly increases.
The fog is a result of falling temperatures reaching the dew point. One would expect that cool water appearing in the atmosphere the level CO2 would decline as the CO2 in the air was absorbed by the water according to Henry’s Law so the increase is perplexing. Where is the increased amount of CO2 coming from? It seems obvious that it is coming from the water in the atmosphere condensing but why hasn’t the CO2 level in the water equalized with the CO2 level while it is was not visible?
If evaporated water has the ability to store water it is definitely not a gas. If it was micro liquid droplets, again, the level should have continuously equalized with level of CO2 in the air as temperature and pressure changed according to Henry’s law but for some reason it did not.
When Dr Pollack first did hie experiments with water he identified the liquid crystal as an E-Z Zone that formed on certain surfaces. In this zone impurities, including salt ions, were excluded and concentrated within the interior area of the water. If water is becoming a liquid crystal when it evaporates this outer shell would prevent any CO2 trapped within when it formed from escaping during changes in temperature and pressure. When the water cooled and the energy stored as an electric potential would be radiated as heat causing the crystal shell to break and allowing the CO2 within to escape into the atmosphere.
If anyone can provide another reason for the increase in CO2 level as atmosphere water becomes fog I would like to hear it. I don’t know if this increase occurs as boiled water condenses into droplets but I would expect that the gases in the water have all been expelled, which is why to produce clear ice cubes they first boil the water.
Reply
MattH
| #
Herb. Have you a reference for the CO2 increase when water vapour condenses hypothesis?
I will attempt not to swear at you for another seven years.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I just asked google what happens to the CO2 level in a fog and got the answer that the CO2 level significantly increases. This was not what I expected and started me thinking on how this could happen so I never continued the search to find references to the actual measurement. I expect they are there, if you are able to plow thrugh the diversions on GHGT.
Herb
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
That’s quite good Herb. I’ve seem comments to the effect that water rises because it’s a lighter molecule than N2 or O2, but it always hangs out with other H2O molecules. There’ll be an average of how many other H2O molecules for each pressure, temperature and, I suppose, daylight intensity, and maybe other conditions. Do you have that data?
Reply
Her Rose
| #
Hi J.,
I don’t have any data. I would expect that the concentration of water in the atmosphere is highest at the top of the troposphere where clouds form. It is like air in a room where the temperature is controlled by the thermometer but below that level the air is cooler while warmer at the ceiling. The water at the top must wait to lose energy before it can fall back to the surface.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
A water molecule is composed of a oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Because of the greater size of the oxygen atom, the electrons of the hydrogen atoms are shifted towards the oxygen atom giving the molecule a negative charge on the oxygen atom and a positive charge on the hydrogen atoms.
JMcG:
This is kinda true, but not really. It isn’t perfectly accurate. And there is a really, really, really good reason to be perfectly accurate. And this reason is that you don’t make the same blunder that Linus Pauling made that has resulted in the widespread but erroneous belief that the polarity of the H2O molecule is static when in actuality it is highly variable. Pauling’s blunder has resulted in the unnecessary designation of over 70 “anomalies” of H2O and overwhelming confusion in academia, which underlies their snotty attitude when they are confronted with the fact that they don’t really understand what they are pretending to understand.
There really are no anomalies in nature. There’s just the fact that humans are bad a theory. Consequently observations are made that are inconsistent with deeply believed but erroneous theory.
The first step is to stop believing nonsense. Just because a guy who won the Nobel prize said something is true this doesn’t mean it is actually true. The concept of electronegativity does not actually exist. Electronegativity is just an arbitrary designation that Pauling imagined into existence. Since electronegativity does not actually exist, it is inaccurate and misleading to say that the polarity of the H2O molecule is the result of the electronegativity differences between its H2O oxygen atom and its hydrogen atoms.
This leaves us with two questions. If it is true, as I say, that the polarity of H2O molecules is variable and not static what is the mechanism of this variability? And why is this mechanism not apparent to us?
I know the answer to both of these questions. But I will give you a chance to answer them.
What is your opinion, Herb? Take a shot at it.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Do you believe that carbonic acid exists? This is a molecule with double covalent bonds that is able to separate a hydrogen ion from a water molecule even though the covalent bonds are never broken. How about nitric acid? These molecules contain no hydrogen but because of their oxygen content they are able to make water into an acid. Yet you maintain that the oxygen in a water molecule could never create a hydrogen ion. Just because molecules have the same number of protons and electrons, doesn’t mean they have a uniform electric charge.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
Do you believe that carbonic acid exists?
JMcG:
Yes. According to Chat GPT:
The key difference between carbonic acid (H₂CO₃) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) lies in their chemical composition and behavior in water:
Chemical Composition:
CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide): This is a simple, stable gas consisting of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms (CO₂). It is non-polar and does not carry acidic properties on its own.
H₂CO₃ (Carbonic Acid): This is a weak acid that forms when CO₂ dissolves in water and reacts with it. The chemical equation for this is:
𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2𝑂 ⇌ 𝐻2𝐶𝑂3
Carbonic acid exists only in solution and is in equilibrium with CO₂ and water.
State and Occurrence:
CO₂ is a gas at standard conditions (room temperature and pressure). It is found in the atmosphere and is a byproduct of respiration and combustion.
H₂CO₃ is not a free-standing molecule; it only exists in water-based solutions and is a transient species formed during the dissolution of CO₂ in water. It is unstable and easily dissociates into bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻) and hydrogen ions (H⁺).
Acidity:
CO₂ is not acidic by itself.
H₂CO₃ is a weak acid and contributes to the acidity of water, particularly in processes like the formation of acid rain. It partially dissociates to release hydrogen ions (H⁺), contributing to the lowering of pH in water.
In short, carbon dioxide is a stable gas, while carbonic acid is an unstable, weak acid formed when CO₂ dissolves in water.
Herb:
This is a molecule with double covalent bonds
JMcG:
CO2 has two sets of double bonds.
Herb:
that is able to separate a hydrogen ion from a water molecule . . .
JMcG:
Yes, as indicated above.
Herb:
. . . even though the covalent bonds are never broken.
JMcG:
Numerous covalent bonds are broken, as indicated above.
Herb:
How about nitric acid? These molecules contain no hydrogen but because of their oxygen content they are able to make water into an acid.
JMcG: Yeah, so?
Herb:
Yet you maintain that the oxygen in a water molecule could never create a hydrogen ion.
JMcG:
I can’t figure out what you even mean with this statement.
Herb:
Just because molecules have the same number of protons and electrons, doesn’t mean they have a uniform electric charge.
JMcG: Again, you lost me here. I can’t figure out what you are trying to say.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
The answer to the questions is:
1) The mechanism of the (extreme) variability of H2O polarity is hydrogen bonds. This is because hydrogen bonds bring an additional electrical gradient that cancels out one of the four electrical gradients (in both molecules that form the bond) that cause polarity. Each H2O molecule can potentially make up to four hydrogen bonds, one each with up to four of the neighboring H2O molecules. Each hydrogen bond can (does) cancel out 25% of the polarity in both of the H2O molecules that participate in the hydrogen bond (in water).
2) There is more than one reason why this mechanism is not apparent to us. Firstly, humans are generally dull witted and bad at theory. Secondly, the notion that a bond can lower the force that causes the bond is extremely counterintuitive to us. Normally we think of the forces that cause a bond as complying with Coulomb’s law. Unfortunately most people don’t really understand Coulomb’s law and, therefore, do not realize that Coulomb’s law requires a difference in charge to be applicable and with H2O the difference in charge is dissolved by the bond itself.
The realization that H2O polarity is variable and that hydrogen bonds are the mechanism of this variability will someday (maybe not for hundreds of years) be recognized as one of the most significant discoveries in mankind. In the meantime it only serves as a way to distinguish bozos from real scientists.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When you connect batteries + to – the electric field at the junction disappears but it does not neutralize. The charges combine to produce a larger charge at the ends of the combined batteries. Unless there is some electron flow from one water molecule to another the electric charge of the combined water molecules will still exist on the exterior of the structure formed. Electric charges only disappear when protons and electrons combine shrinking the positive and negative fields
Herb.
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Relevance?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You tetrahedral shape means there are oxygen atoms, with their negative caharge at the vertices and the six hydrogen atoms, with their positive charge connect those vertices. Each oxygen atom is connected to three hydrogen atoms but because the hydrogen atom connects to two oxygen atoms, its positive charge is divided by two. This give each oxygen atom a charge of 1.5 hydrogen atoms which is less than it had as a water molecule. How can you say it is neutralized when the negative charge on the oxygen atoms increases?
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
You tetrahedral shape means there are oxygen atoms, with their negative caharge at the vertices and the six hydrogen atoms,
JMcG:
What in the world are you talking about?
Herb:
with their positive charge connect those vertices.
JMcG:
Vertices?
Herb:
Each oxygen atom is connected to three hydrogen atoms but because the hydrogen atom connects to two oxygen atoms, its positive charge is divided by two. This give each oxygen atom a charge of 1.5 hydrogen atoms which is less than it had as a water molecule. How can you say it is neutralized when the negative charge on the oxygen atoms increases?
JMcG:
I can’t make any sense of this Herb. Sorry. I don’t know what to tell you.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I have trouble with 4 surrounding water molecules neutralizing 25% of the charge of a water molecule. In order for that to happen the surrounding molecules must be equally spaced. I can see how the molecules could be spaced top-bottom and front back perpendicular but I don’t see how the 2 internal hydrogen atoms can be spaced to produce an equal force on the 4 surrounding oxygen atoms.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
I have trouble with 4 surrounding water molecules neutralizing 25% of the charge of a water molecule.
JMcG:
First you have to understand how and why the H2O molecule is polar. You are trying to jump ahead and it is confusing you.
If you are interested we can meet on a Zoom call and I can get you up to speed. If that doesn’t work for you I don’t know what else to tell you.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Thanks for the offer but I need to think more and see if the light goes on.
There are many problems with your theory that I need to resolve. What cause the droplets to keep rising in the atmosphere and remain suspended at an altitude? How do they gain enough charge to repel electrons on the surface producing s positive charge? Where do the electrons that produce lightning come from?
Their are so many peculiarities that need to be fitted into the puzzle.
herb
James Bernard McGinn
| #
I see that you’re still struggling to grasp the core issue, and without understanding what I mean by Pauling’s blunder, you’re unlikely to make any real progress. You continue to overlook the fact that hydrogen bonds neutralize H₂O polarity by 25% with each bond. Without acknowledging this, advancing your understanding is impossible.
Take the textbook definition of H₂O as having a static polarity, for example. If we accept that flawed premise, we’re left wondering how clouds can even form. As nanodroplets in moist air merge into larger microdroplets, the conventional expectation would be that their polarity increases cumulatively. This would result in a stronger mutual attraction, causing them to rapidly coalesce into larger droplets, making cloud stability impossible. Under this view, clouds would be nothing more than a fleeting phenomenon.
The reality is quite different. The reason droplets of “highly polar” H₂O molecules remain small enough to stay suspended by the weak electromagnetic static charges in the atmosphere is that, as they combine, their polarity decreases. In fact, every time two H₂O droplets merge, their combined polarity diminishes at a rate inversely proportional to their aggregated mass, compared to their original, pre-merged masses.
How long have you been at this, Herb? Over a decade now, and you’re still chasing Pollack’s misguided ideas about H ions and hydroxyls? It’s surreal.
James McGinn / Genius
https://youtu.be/NAVnXPD__9M?si=h6qkhEZwEtRAWhzL
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Only the modern science of quantum mechanics (QM) can explain it. All the electrons of any atom are in perpetual random motions, even at zero Kevin, in certain probable volumes of space about the tiny, tiny nucleus of the atom. One might rightly claim that this model of the atom isn’t “reasonable” and they are right . But until someone comes up with another model which explains so many observations, we have to accept the explanations of QM.
Decided not to proofread. Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
The properties of H2O have intrigued me since early childhood. I used to watch my dad’s stovetop percolator with fascination. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was watching a device use all states of water as a means to an end – a pot of coffee. I was in awe how a glass of ice would get wet on the outside in a matter of minutes. I thought my mom was crazy the first time I saw her hang clothes on the line to dry. In my mind, drying clothes was something that surely required a high tech solution, i.e. her electric dryer. Afterall, nothing just disappears, does it? But, like puddles after a rain, the clothes on the line dried. Hmmm.
No matter how much scientific knowledge I may gain, I will jealously hold on to my childhood belief that water is the most amazing, magical substance known to man.
BTW, Herb, I think you’re on to something. Good paper!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi S.C. and James,
S.C., you just illustrated it is good to be old. I ask, but don’t expect an answer: How many people reading your comment have ever seen what you described? But my mother hung her wet clothes outside during the winter and they froze dry. So I am ‘one’.
James, the self proclaimed GENIUS, please explain in 200 words, or less, how my mother’s wet clothes dried, on the line, during the winter.
Have a good day
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Water molecules are basically party animals. You get a perfectly clear sky, except, over there, yonder, is one solitary cloud.
Them water molecules are all drinking and socializing and attracted to each other, getting intoxicated and sometimes boisterous on each others’ company.
But they ain’t drinking no alcohol. No way siree. They all be getting shickered on drinking water.
Them bastards are all cannibals and lovin’ it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoomer,
I know you are busy commenting with Herb, but here at a different article I would like edit James’ comment (James Bernard McGinn September 27, 2024 at 2:22 pm) and I would like to read your opinion about my editing effort..
“Each H2O molecule can potentially make up, [in an ice cube but not on its surface], to four hydrogen bonds , one each with up to four of the neighboring H2O molecules.”
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Jerry,
Ice is less comprehensively bonded than liquid water. Ice involves about 50% of the bonds twisting into and against each other and breaking. Comprehensive bonding defeats polarity.
Hydrogen bonds are a switch that switches off polarity. Ice involves some bonds being broken, which turns on (activates) some polarity
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Anoher example of you using a term “Comprehensive bonding” I have never read before. What is your scientific definition for it?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I am still waiting for your answer to my question.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
What do you think it means. Take a shot at it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You have not yet answered my question but instead you ask me a question. But I will answer your question with this statement: I will answer your question when you answer my previous question and when you explain what “IT” is.
Have a good day
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. Herb,
Excellent article. A thought piece, indeed.
In support of your observations, gasoline vapors are emitted every time we fill our cars, yet, the temperature (and pressure) are still well below the ‘boiling point’. Still, very flammable.
The study of ‘fluid dynamics’ includes both liquids and gases. Wing foil sections react the same way, regardless of being immersed in liquids or gases, as they are both ‘fluids’. Submarines and airplanes both follow the same Universal Rules.
Perhaps, we should think of a third category between the two media? The ‘vapor’ phase? (Vapour for all of my Commonwealth friends). The question is, “When does a vapor become a gas?”
Also, in your fourth to last paragraph, you should emphasize “This creates lightning…” Perhaps, repeat it twice, or type it in bold letters.
Benjamin Franklin would have nodded his head, saying, “Of course!”, although he operated more on intuition and street smarts, than a study of chemistry.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Thanks Kevin,
Perhaps we should create the term airolizing for becoming part of the atmosphere without becoming a gas.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This link (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/) thats one to a previous article which ia a few years old and includes a photo which I took of the sun rising over the crest od the Cascade Mts through the smoke of a wildfire more rhan 200 miles to the east of my location. But what is really unique is when have clicked the link I also get the comments which were made Herg and James as they ignore the possible significance of my photo. Please check out the link.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This link (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/) thats one to a previous article which ia a few years old and includes a photo which I took of the sun rising over the crest od the Cascade Mts through the smoke of a wildfire more rhan 200 miles to the east of my location. But what is really unique is when have clicked the link I also get the comments which were made Herg and James as they ignore the possible significance of my photo. Please check out the link.
Have a good day
Reply