Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #587819 > unrolled thread

Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 10:13 -0700
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-06 01:33 -0400
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:03 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 09:59 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 11:15 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 18:33 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-06 12:02 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:25 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-06 14:40 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 05:51 -0700
          ah, cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 10:51 -0700
            Re: ah, cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 16:07 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 11:22 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-07 18:20 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-08 13:51 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:45 +0200
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:43 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 19:58 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 21:48 +0200
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:29 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:33 -0500
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 22:40 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 23:24 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 23:15 +0200
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:08 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 03:27 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 20:58 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:55 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 09:21 -0700
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:19 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 04:58 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-21 05:12 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:22 +0200
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 14:00 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 17:46 -0700
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:10 -0700
              Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:32 +0200
                Re: Precipitation (was: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 08:33 -0700
                  Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 21:25 +0200
                    Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 12:38 -0700
                      Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:01 +0200
                        Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 18:09 -0700
                          Re: Precipitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-24 03:53 +0200
                            Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 06:17 -0700
                        Re: Precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-23 22:41 -0500
                        Re: Precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 09:14 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 08:21 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:33 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 08:35 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:16 -0700
              Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 07:52 +0200
                Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 09:20 -0700
                  Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 21:45 +0200
                    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 18:06 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 11:10 -0700
      Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-19 18:05 -0500
        Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:58 -0700
          Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:13 -0700
            Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:12 -0500
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 07:14 -0700
    Re: Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 15:29 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#587819 — Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense

Sometimes people believe things that are nonsense because they have painted themselves into a corner with their assumptions and believing in nonsense is the only option that remains to save them from appearing to be complete fools. The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere. It is universally believed by all meteorologists yet, strangely, not one of them would claim knowledge of a test or experiment to demonstrate its validity. Stranger still, what little empirical evidence we do have decidedly indicates that the notion fails. This notion has evolved into a taboo within the disciplines that study the atmosphere, the primary champions and enforcers of this taboo being meteorologists, most of whom for which the issue is a mute point in that they exclusively work with synoptic charts (cold fronts, warm fronts and such, usually displayed on computer screens) and, therefore, the notion is never applied in the context of their daily duties. Only for a very small subset of meteorologists—those that deal with the severe weather and, even then, only those that deal with the theoretical aspects thereof—does this notion have any real significance. But for these few the effect is intellectually devastating, rendering them feckless, incapable of making any kind of real progress in the discipline. One consequence of this being that the theoretical aspects of the study of severe weather have come to epitomize academic vapidity. And there really isn’t much any of them can do about it in that belief in the concept is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by any of the various stakeholders in the discipline. But at least they don’t look like complete fools.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16329

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#588109

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
<jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

...
>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.

Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
(>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
forms water droplets (clouds).

As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions. 

Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
again.

As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
the ground as rain drops.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588111

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
> 
> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions. 
> 
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.
> 
> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
> 
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------


This is a perfectly stupid explanation.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588146

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density.

Steam is monomolecular H2O.



 The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density

Absurd.  You are a clueless pretender.  Typical


> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out,

Plainly a dumb assertions.



 colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque.

It's not steam ambient temps  It's water suspended in air, which surrounds us all the time. 


 If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
> 
> As water vapor (much lighter than air)

Water vapor is always heavier than air, all other factors being the same.



 rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions. 


cloud grows?

> 
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

You barely even have a coherent point.


> 
> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
> 
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588158

of course, a single HOH is a lot lighter than OO, NN etc. ur argon

> is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).
> 
> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588222

38% lighter
18/29

So it's more than half

2 or more in a droplet/cluster most likely never less than ten molecules per 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588171

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:34:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.

Steam in clear, not opaque.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588198

known as "lensing e.g;
it would be interesgting to develop the lensing property
of 2HOH, to see how it is different
from that of a HOH

> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
> 
> Steam in clear, not opaque.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588182

On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.

> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> forms water droplets (clouds).

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
>
> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> again.

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> the ground as rain drops.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

Those sound like facts.

James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within 
his imagination, and can't get out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588248

So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588372 — ah, cOOl

it may be possible to seek the method
by whci steamtables were generated, say,
in the sauna

> So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588413 — Re: ah, cOOl

or the steampower association boilerrOOm

> in the sauna
> 
> > So, uh, what is boiling temp of H2O?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588269

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/6/2016 12:33 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> > <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> > Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> > out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> > (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits. Technically,
> > its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> > atmosphere from its vicinity. As it spreads out, colliding and mixing
> > with the heavier air molecules, it loses kinetic energy (cools) due to
> > the work it does against atmospheric pressure. By the time it reaches
> > saturation density (100% humidity) it has become translucent (almost
> > transparent) instead of opaque. If its density increases beyond
> > saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or further cooling, it
> > forms water droplets (clouds).
> 
> > As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> > into water droplets (clouds). As water vapor condenses into a cloud,
> > the volume reduction (vapor to liquid) reduces the outward positive
> > pressure of the cloud and allows more moisture laden air to flow into
> > the cloud. This effect causes the cloud to grow in all directions.
> >
> > Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> > small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> > heating before falling very far. The resultant vapor rises upward
> > again to the top of the cloud and condenses again to repeat the cycle.
> > The energy required to vaporize a droplet increases with the mass of
> > the droplet (cube of the droplet radius ) but the energy acquired from
> > falling friction increases only as the square of the droplet radius.
> > Thus the larger the droplet, the farther it falls before evaporating
> > again.
> 
> > As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> > and larger drops form. They are larger because the vapor molecules are
> > moving slower and more nucleate (stick together) per second. These
> > larger, colder droplets eventually survive the trip falling through
> > the cloud and (and air below the cloud) without vaporizing. They hit
> > the ground as rain drops.
> >
> > Mike
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> Those sound like facts.
> 
> James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within 
> his imagination, and can't get out.

Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588312

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?

I was going to ask you that same thing. After all, I have a mud fence out back that is smarter than you are...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588380

On 7/7/2016 8:20 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>
>> Sergio, you're so dumb, why do you even come here?
>
> I was going to ask you that same thing. After all, I have a mud fence out back that is smarter than you are...
>

Poor James, he suffers from "Desiccated Brain Syndrome", DBS, may be 
caused by lack of sufficient water vapor.

DBS is also know as "Brain Fog".

He shouldn't try to fool Mother Nature.

http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/810340/what-you-need-to-know-about-brain-fog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589956

Sergio wrote:

> Those sound like facts.

Sound: yes; are: for the most part, no.

> James McGinn (McFly) does not deal with facts, he is lost deep within
> his imagination, and can't get out.

Apparently he is not the only one.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589954

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>The most stupefying myth in all of meteorology is the myth that steam can
>>persist in our atmosphere.
> 
> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.

Partially true.  It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the 
*air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer 
the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.

> Technically, its not persisting in the atmosphere since it has purged the
> atmosphere from its vicinity.

Nonsense.

> As it spreads out, colliding and mixing with the heavier air molecules, it
> loses kinetic energy (cools) due to the work it does against atmospheric
> pressure. By the time it reaches saturation density (100% humidity) it has
> become translucent (almost transparent) instead of opaque. If its density
> increases beyond saturation due to a pressure pulse for instance or
> further cooling, it forms water droplets (clouds).

I am not sure that is a completely correct description either.

> As water vapor (much lighter than air) rises and cools, it condenses
> into water droplets (clouds).

You have omitted the most important part of the story.  For a gas to 
condense to drops that results in clouds, it does not suffice that its 
temperature is reduced; there has to be something *solid* that it can 
*condense on*.  Condensation of water vapor to clouds is possible because 
the air in our atmosphere is not clean: small dust particles (e.g., carried 
away from deserts and ground soil, and from air pollution caused by humans), 
which in this context are called *condensation nuclei*, are intermixed with 
it, and the water vapor condenses *on them* (just like it condenses on a 
pane of window glass; the scientific term of that is *phase boundary*).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain>

> As water vapor condenses into a cloud, the volume reduction (vapor to
> liquid) reduces the outward positive pressure of the cloud and allows
> more moisture laden air to flow into the cloud. This effect causes the
> cloud to grow in all directions.

How did you get that idea?

> Droplets at the top of the cloud (coldest) fall downward with a very
> small terminal velocity and usually evaporate from air frictional
> heating before falling very far.

Instead, those "droplets" at the top of a cloud are actually condensation 
nuclei surrounded by then-*frozen* *solid* water *ice*.  They fall down 
eventually because there comes a point when their mass becomes to great for 
any upwardly directed airstream (as warm air rises, and the planet’s crust 
is continuously warmed by its main star) to hold in suspense.  Depending on 
the temperature in and below the cloud they *melt* or even evaporate in the 
process.  [AFAIK, it is _not_ any “frictional heating” that determines what 
kind of precipitation, if any, can be expected from falling out of a cloud, 
but temperature and wind conditions in the lower part and below the cloud 
(technically, there is snow/hail from *every* cloud; you can see that in 
winter or in polar areas when and where the temperature of the air below the 
cloud is not high enough to melt the snowflakes/ice pellets).  When the 
temperature below the cloud is just high enough for the falling 
pellets/drops to evaporate before they reach the ground, you can see 
/virga/, “falling streaks”, below the cloud.  The friction between falling 
and rising particles in the cloud, however, allows for a separation of 
electrical charges and the cloud to be statically electrically charged, 
which leads to lightnings as the form of resulting electric discharge inside 
a large cloud, between clouds, or clouds and the ground.]

In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from 
airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei; 
either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little to 
none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have existing 
clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough rain, but not 
100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not a hailstorm, 
down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to develop towards 
cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of a hailstorm due to 
the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>

> As the cloud grows upward and the temperature at the top drops, colder
> and larger drops form.

Not drops, but pellets of *water ice* frozen on dust particles.  They are 
not drops of (dirty) water until shortly before, or after they leave the 
cloud.  The temperature and air pressure are much too low there for liquid 
water to exist (down to ca. 220 K/−53.15 °C and 0.5 bar/500 hPa near the 
tropopause, according to the 1962 US Standard Atmosphere Graph; cf. NIST 
standard conditions: 293.15 K/20 °C and 1.01325 bar/1013.25 hPa).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature>
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=water+phase+diagram&dataset=>

> They are larger because the vapor molecules are moving slower and more 
> nucleate (stick together) per second.

No, they can get larger because as the water *freezes* on the condensation 
nuclei, more *water* can *freeze* on the resulting ice pellets.  It is the 
same that happens when your tongue, wet with the water of the saliva, can 
get stuck on a really cold and wet piece of soft-ice cream, or your hands, 
wet with water of the skin, are stuck when touching the inside of a freezer 
[you can get severe injuries this way; kids, do not try that at home, and 
always wear thick insulating gloves when you are experimenting with dry ice 
(solid carbon dioxide)].

I strongly recommend that you read the chapters on thermodynamics of the 
Feynman Lectures on Physics, and introductory material on meteorology (such 
as what I just gave to you) to clarify some of your misconceptions about 
(water) vapor and clouds.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589959

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> In weather modification, there is “cloud seeding”: clouds are seeded from
> airplanes with drops of silver iodide as artificial condensation nuclei;
> either to form clouds that can rain of where there would have been little
                                      ^^
_off_

> to none naturally (i.e., over arid regions and deserts), or to have
> existing clouds rain off before they become to large (you want enough
                                              ^^
_too_

> rain, but not 100 % cloud coverage for your plants; and you want rain, not
> a hailstorm, down on your crops – as cumulus clouds grow *upwards* to
> develop towards cumulonimbuses, they become more likely to be a source of
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also possible: “cumulonimbi”, according to the Oxford Dictionary of British 
& World English, which is the form closer to the Latin original.

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nimbus>
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cumulonimbus>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nimbus#Latin>

> a hailstorm due to the much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589987

Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
> 

>>
>> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
>> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
>> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
> 
> Partially true.  It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the 
> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the warmer 
> the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.

In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.

Air just marginally modifies the vapour fugacity*),
compared to the pure vapour.

*) equivalent pressure of ideal gas with the same chemical potential

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589999

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 19/07/2016 v 19:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>>> Steam is water vapor above air saturation density. The steam coming
>>> out of a kettle is opaque because it is well over saturation density
>>> (>> 100% humidity) and pushes the air aside as it exits.
>> 
>> Partially true.  It is not the steam that is over 100 % humidity, but the
>> *air* is (i.e., there is more water in the air that it can hold; the
>> warmer the air, the more water it can hold), *therefore* there is steam.
> 
> In fact, it does not have much to do with air.
> Air does not hold it, it can be vacuum as well.

Incorrect.  Air *contains* water vapour because it mainly consists of other 
gases that water molecules can diffuse into.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor>

> Air just marginally modifies the vapour fugacity*),
> compared to the pure vapour.
> 
> *) equivalent pressure of ideal gas with the same chemical potential

How did you get that idea?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web