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

Groups > sci.physics > #545771 > unrolled thread

Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 18:10 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-01-16 09:59 +0100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 01:35 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 09:14 -0800
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:17 -0600
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:02 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:39 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:26 -0600
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:41 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:26 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:41 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:52 -0800
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 23:44 -0800
                    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:43 -0800
                      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:16 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 08:54 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:18 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 16:35 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:18 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 11:43 +1100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:19 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:46 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 20:13 -0600
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 15:47 +1100
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:04 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:27 -0600
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 16:57 +1100
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:21 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:21 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-17 06:32 +0000
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:43 -0800
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:23 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 23:50 +1100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:05 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 14:29 -0600
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-18 11:52 +1100
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-18 00:59 +0000
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-18 13:18 +1100
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 18:39 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 00:32 -0600
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:17 -0600
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 10:02 -0800
                    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 12:58 -0600
                      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 16:38 -0800
                        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 19:14 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-18 13:44 +0000
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 17:50 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 00:34 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 13:33 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:14 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:14 -0800
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:29 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:28 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#545771 — Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn)

Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

There is a general misconception that the reduction is lift that aircraft experience in moist air is a result of moist air being lower in density than dry air.  Supposedly this confirms the notion that the moisture in moist air, evaporate, is monomolecular H2O, the molecular equivalent of steam, gaseous H2O. Actually, this is impossible.  As confirmed by hundreds of years of experimental evidence, steam (gaseous H2O) can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.  Obviously earth's atmosphere never gets hot enough to support the existence of steam which has a boiling point temperature that is 2 or 3 times the hottest temperatures in our atmosphere.  So, contrary to what people generally assume, all of the moisture in earth's atmosphere consists of microdroplets/clusters of H2O.  And as long as the diameter of these microdroplets stay smaller than the length of a photon they are invisible--just as invisible as steam.

Nevertheless, aircraft do experience reduced lift in moist air. And, due to the fact that moist air contains droplets of H2O that are larger than the N2 and O2 molecules that they replace, moist air is denser (heavier) than dry air. And so, given that it is generally true that denser air provides more lift than less dense air there appears to be a contradiction here.  If all of this is true, why does heavier, denser, moist air not increase lift?  Why does it reduce it?  

Before we can answer that question there are two other truths about aerodynamics that we need to clarify:
1) The energy that causes lift in an airplane doesn't come from the engine of the airplane. The energy that comes from the engine of the airplane is used to overcome drag. The energy that causes lift comes from air pressure--it comes from the atmosphere itself; And, 
2) there is a finite amount of energy per volume of air. And, therefore, there is a finite amount of energy that can be efficiently extracted from a volume of air. This is why flying faster increases lift.  flying faster allows you to use more air and, thereby, extract more energy from it.  But flying faster doesn't increase the amount of energy per volume that an airplane gets out of the air. 

The reason lift is reduced in in moist air is because liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of saying that it absorbs energy. Specifically, it is harder to extract the energy from air pressure because so much of it is soaked up by the liquid water that is in the air. So, stating that you know moist air is lighter because it reduces lift is scientifically invalid. It is an ignorance based assertion.   

This falsehood has been promoted by the meteorological lobby. The truth is that moist air is heavier, not lighter, than dry air. And claiming that reduced drag associated with moist air is evidence that substantiates the notion that moist air is lighter is an invalid argument.  Because it fails to account for other factors that may actually be causing the reduction in lift. The fact is, as indicatd, water's ability to absorb energy is greater than that of any other liquid. This is the reason why moist air reduces lift.  And it is also the reason why pilots are advised to avoid clouds. And if it was true that denser air increases lift that wouldn't be the case, pilots would be advised to go skipping across the atmosphere on clouds, taking advantage of the increased lift provided by their increased density. 

The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it. Nobody ever has. Meteorologists absolutely refuse to measure it. Meteorologists measure the relative humidity and think that that also indicates the weight/volume. And that simply ain't so. (Meteorologist look at things very differently than real scientist. They have their narrative that they hide from the public. They are more concerned about looking scientific than they are being factual.) If you measure you know.  If you guess based on indirect evidence you are just guessing.  Reality is too complex.  People are gullible.  People are easily fooled.  People miss details and the devil is in the details.  People tend to be easily convinced by anecdote and experts. And they don't realize that very often the experts are using the same flawed methods to come to the same flawed conclusion. When meteorologists are talking about "density," you never know when they are talking about 1) the ratio of water to air or 2) the weight of air per volume.  These are two very different concepts that they employ interchangeably.  Sometimes they use them interchangeably in the same paragraph or the same sentence. And if you try to get them to clarify they throw a hissy fit and stamp off.  Meteorology is, in many respects, a belief system and not a real science.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#545806

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:10:26 -0800 (PST), James McGinn
<jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
>
>There is a general misconception that the reduction is lift that aircraft experience in moist air is a result of moist air being lower in density than dry air.  Supposedly this confirms the notion that the moisture in moist air, evaporate, is monomolecular H2O, the molecular equivalent of steam, gaseous H2O. Actually, this is impossible.  As confirmed by hundreds of years of experimental evidence, steam (gaseous H2O) can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.  Obviously earth's atmosphere never gets hot enough to support the existence of steam which has a boiling point temperature that is 2 or 3 times the hottest temperatures in our atmosphere.  So, contrary to what people generally assume, all of the moisture in earth's atmosphere consists of microdroplets/clusters of H2O.  And as long as the diameter of these microdroplets stay smaller than the length of a photon they are invisible--just as invisible as steam.
>
>Nevertheless, aircraft do experience reduced lift in moist air. And, due to the fact that moist air contains droplets of H2O that are larger than the N2 and O2 molecules that they replace, moist air is denser (heavier) than dry air. And so, given that it is generally true that denser air provides more lift than less dense air there appears to be a contradiction here.  If all of this is true, why does heavier, denser, moist air not increase lift?  Why does it reduce it?  
>
>Before we can answer that question there are two other truths about aerodynamics that we need to clarify:
>1) The energy that causes lift in an airplane doesn't come from the engine of the airplane. The energy that comes from the engine of the airplane is used to overcome drag. The energy that causes lift comes from air pressure--it comes from the atmosphere itself; And, 
>2) there is a finite amount of energy per volume of air. And, therefore, there is a finite amount of energy that can be efficiently extracted from a volume of air. This is why flying faster increases lift.  flying faster allows you to use more air and, thereby, extract more energy from it.  But flying faster doesn't increase the amount of energy per volume that an airplane gets out of the air. 
>
>The reason lift is reduced in in moist air is because liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of saying that it absorbs energy. Specifically, it is harder to extract the energy from air pressure because so much of it is soaked up by the liquid water that is in the air. So, stating that you know moist air is lighter because it reduces lift is scientifically invalid. It is an ignorance based assertion.   
>
>This falsehood has been promoted by the meteorological lobby. The truth is that moist air is heavier, not lighter, than dry air. And claiming that reduced drag associated with moist air is evidence that substantiates the notion that moist air is lighter is an invalid argument.  Because it fails to account for other factors that may actually be causing the reduction in lift. The fact is, as indicatd, water's ability to absorb energy is greater than that of any other liquid. This is the reason why moist air reduces lift.  And it is also the reason why pilots are advised to avoid clouds. And if it was true that denser air increases lift that wouldn't be the case, pilots would be advised to go skipping across the atmosphere on clouds, taking advantage of the increased lift provided by their increased density. 
>
>The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it. Nobody ever has. Meteorologists absolutely refuse to measure it. Meteorologists measure the relative humidity and think that that also indicates the weight/volume. And that simply ain't so. (Meteorologist look at things very differently than real scientist. They have their narrative that they hide from the public. They are more concerned about looking scientific than they are being factual.) If you measure you know.  If you guess based on indirect evidence you are just guessing.  Reality is too complex.  People are gullible.  People are easily fooled.  People miss details and the devil is in the details.  People tend to be easily convinced by anecdote and experts. And they don't realize that very often the experts are using the same flawed methods to come to the same flawed conclusion. When meteorologists are talking about "density," you never know when they are talking about 1) the ratio of water to air or 2) the
>weight of air per volume.  These are two very different concepts that they employ interchangeably.  Sometimes they use them interchangeably in the same paragraph or the same sentence. And if you try to get them to clarify they throw a hissy fit and stamp off.  Meteorology is, in many respects, a belief system and not a real science.  


Seems you found something which is news to you.

But actually it is quite old on this planet.

w.

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

#545809

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 12:59:28 AM UTC-8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:10:26 -0800 (PST), James McGinn
> <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
> >
> >There is a general misconception that the reduction is lift that aircraft experience in moist air is a result of moist air being lower in density than dry air.  Supposedly this confirms the notion that the moisture in moist air, evaporate, is monomolecular H2O, the molecular equivalent of steam, gaseous H2O. Actually, this is impossible.  As confirmed by hundreds of years of experimental evidence, steam (gaseous H2O) can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.  Obviously earth's atmosphere never gets hot enough to support the existence of steam which has a boiling point temperature that is 2 or 3 times the hottest temperatures in our atmosphere.  So, contrary to what people generally assume, all of the moisture in earth's atmosphere consists of microdroplets/clusters of H2O.  And as long as the diameter of these microdroplets stay smaller than the length of a photon they are invisible--just as invisible as steam.
> >
> >Nevertheless, aircraft do experience reduced lift in moist air. And, due to the fact that moist air contains droplets of H2O that are larger than the N2 and O2 molecules that they replace, moist air is denser (heavier) than dry air. And so, given that it is generally true that denser air provides more lift than less dense air there appears to be a contradiction here.  If all of this is true, why does heavier, denser, moist air not increase lift?  Why does it reduce it?  
> >
> >Before we can answer that question there are two other truths about aerodynamics that we need to clarify:
> >1) The energy that causes lift in an airplane doesn't come from the engine of the airplane. The energy that comes from the engine of the airplane is used to overcome drag. The energy that causes lift comes from air pressure--it comes from the atmosphere itself; And, 
> >2) there is a finite amount of energy per volume of air. And, therefore, there is a finite amount of energy that can be efficiently extracted from a volume of air. This is why flying faster increases lift.  flying faster allows you to use more air and, thereby, extract more energy from it.  But flying faster doesn't increase the amount of energy per volume that an airplane gets out of the air. 
> >
> >The reason lift is reduced in in moist air is because liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of saying that it absorbs energy. Specifically, it is harder to extract the energy from air pressure because so much of it is soaked up by the liquid water that is in the air. So, stating that you know moist air is lighter because it reduces lift is scientifically invalid. It is an ignorance based assertion.   
> >
> >This falsehood has been promoted by the meteorological lobby. The truth is that moist air is heavier, not lighter, than dry air. And claiming that reduced drag associated with moist air is evidence that substantiates the notion that moist air is lighter is an invalid argument.  Because it fails to account for other factors that may actually be causing the reduction in lift. The fact is, as indicatd, water's ability to absorb energy is greater than that of any other liquid. This is the reason why moist air reduces lift.  And it is also the reason why pilots are advised to avoid clouds. And if it was true that denser air increases lift that wouldn't be the case, pilots would be advised to go skipping across the atmosphere on clouds, taking advantage of the increased lift provided by their increased density. 
> >
> >The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it. Nobody ever has. Meteorologists absolutely refuse to measure it. Meteorologists measure the relative humidity and think that that also indicates the weight/volume. And that simply ain't so. (Meteorologist look at things very differently than real scientist. They have their narrative that they hide from the public. They are more concerned about looking scientific than they are being factual.) If you measure you know.  If you guess based on indirect evidence you are just guessing.  Reality is too complex.  People are gullible.  People are easily fooled.  People miss details and the devil is in the details.  People tend to be easily convinced by anecdote and experts. And they don't realize that very often the experts are using the same flawed methods to come to the same flawed conclusion. When meteorologists are talking about "density," you never know when they are talking about 1) the ratio of water to air or 2) the
> >weight of air per volume.  These are two very different concepts that they employ interchangeably.  Sometimes they use them interchangeably in the same paragraph or the same sentence. And if you try to get them to clarify they throw a hissy fit and stamp off.  Meteorology is, in many respects, a belief system and not a real science.  
> 
> 
> Seems you found something which is news to you.
> 
> But actually it is quite old on this planet.
> 
> w.

Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

You are confusing lift with traction, 
where there is more traction when it's dry.


Water is a most interesting substance, and 
has matter of factly many, many phases, 
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.  

These are usually at extremely high and 
low temperature regimes, as of the super 
cooled water, and live steam.

There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many 
charts as to the behavior of water under 
temperature and pressure.

In the biological realm, hydrophilicity 
and the ubiquity of water as the universal 
solvent is a critical component as the 
medium of most molecular reactions and 
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles 
and the structural folding mechanics of 
proteins.

The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's 
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course 
that stochastic motion as imparted by the 
energy or heat of the particles leaves 
them variously set and jostled.

These bonds aren't as strong as molecular 
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly 
their molecular or chemical properties, in 
terms of the chemical elements.  They are 
moreso simply the establishment of phase 
(material phase) in terms of settings of 
uniform media, and various aggregates, 
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

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

#545839

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:35:54 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:


> Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

There is more drag because moist air is denser.  But that is true for dry air also, but denser dry air increases lift. In contrast, denser, moist air reduces lift.

> You are confusing lift with traction, 
> where there is more traction when it's dry.

There is no traction involved in aerodynamics, AFAICT. I think you are confused.

> Water is a most interesting substance, and 
> has matter of factly many, many phases, 
> besides our usual water, ice, and steam.  
> 
> These are usually at extremely high and 
> low temperature regimes, as of the super 
> cooled water, and live steam.

You are preaching to the choir.  I can explain underlying basis of H2O anomalous behavior.  See this on this NG:
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity

> There are many an engineering and steam-
> fitter's handbook with quite the few many 
> charts as to the behavior of water under 
> temperature and pressure.
> 
> In the biological realm, hydrophilicity 
> and the ubiquity of water as the universal 
> solvent is a critical component as the 
> medium of most molecular reactions and 
> molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles 
> and the structural folding mechanics of 
> proteins.
> 
> The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's 
> is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
> a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course 
> that stochastic motion as imparted by the 
> energy or heat of the particles leaves 
> them variously set and jostled.

See my paper.  van der Waal's isn't the cause.  van der Waal's is a red herring.  I explain "mysterious" jostling.

> 
> These bonds aren't as strong as molecular 
> bonds

You mean hydrogen bonds, right?

> as usually define molecules and thusly 
> their molecular or chemical properties, in 
> terms of the chemical elements.  They are 
> moreso simply the establishment of phase 
> (material phase) in terms of settings of 
> uniform media, and various aggregates, 
> solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

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

#545968

On 1/16/2016 11:14 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:35:54 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson
> wrote:

Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.


Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.

These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.

There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.

In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.

The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.

These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements.  They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.





>
> There is more drag because moist air is denser.  But that is true for
> dry air also, but denser dry air increases lift. In contrast, denser,
> moist air reduces lift.

wrong.

>

>
> There is no traction involved in aerodynamics, AFAICT. I think you
> are confused.

you remain confused, and a troll

>
>
> I are preaching to the choir.  You can explain underlying basis of

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

#545986

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 9:14:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:35:54 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> 
> > Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.
> 
> There is more drag because moist air is denser.  But that is true for dry air also, but denser dry air increases lift. In contrast, denser, moist air reduces lift.
> 
> > You are confusing lift with traction, 
> > where there is more traction when it's dry.
> 
> There is no traction involved in aerodynamics, AFAICT. I think you are confused.
> 
> > Water is a most interesting substance, and 
> > has matter of factly many, many phases, 
> > besides our usual water, ice, and steam.  
> > 
> > These are usually at extremely high and 
> > low temperature regimes, as of the super 
> > cooled water, and live steam.
> 
> You are preaching to the choir.  I can explain underlying basis of H2O anomalous behavior.  See this on this NG:
> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> 
> > There are many an engineering and steam-
> > fitter's handbook with quite the few many 
> > charts as to the behavior of water under 
> > temperature and pressure.
> > 
> > In the biological realm, hydrophilicity 
> > and the ubiquity of water as the universal 
> > solvent is a critical component as the 
> > medium of most molecular reactions and 
> > molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles 
> > and the structural folding mechanics of 
> > proteins.
> > 
> > The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's 
> > is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
> > a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course 
> > that stochastic motion as imparted by the 
> > energy or heat of the particles leaves 
> > them variously set and jostled.
> 
> See my paper.  van der Waal's isn't the cause.  van der Waal's is a red herring.  I explain "mysterious" jostling.
> 
> > 
> > These bonds aren't as strong as molecular 
> > bonds
> 
> You mean hydrogen bonds, right?
> 
> > as usually define molecules and thusly 
> > their molecular or chemical properties, in 
> > terms of the chemical elements.  They are 
> > moreso simply the establishment of phase 
> > (material phase) in terms of settings of 
> > uniform media, and various aggregates, 
> > solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

Traction is in terms of ground effect, 
lift is in terms of aerofoils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)

I am not seeing what you are explaining yet as 
novel, though I did notice you basically 
established a pair of categorizations for four 
cases (of hydrogen bonds).  What is the gist, 
what is the point?  What is the neat simple 
principle to carry on in effect?

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

#545992

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> I am not seeing what you are explaining yet as 
> novel, 

See this on this NG: 
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity 

Look for "The Mechanism" therein.  It is novel.

> though I did notice you basically 
> established a pair of categorizations for four 
> cases (of hydrogen bonds).  What is the gist, 
> what is the point?  What is the neat simple 
> principle to carry on in effect?

If you are looking for something simple or obvious, or that doesn't require considerable effort, I suggest you don't bother.  Sorry.

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

#546012

On 1/16/2016 8:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson
> wrote:
>
>> I am not seeing what you are explaining yet as novel,
>
> See this on this NG: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogas Ponding as The Michanesm
> That Neetrayises M2O Pollackrity
>
> Look for "The Mechanism" therein.  It is novel.

its Science Fiction

>
>> though I did notice you basically established a pair of
>> categorizations for four cases (of hydrogen bonds).  What is the
>> gist, what is the point?  What is the neat simple principle to
>> carry on in effect?
>
> If I am looking for something simple or obvious, or that doesn't
> require considerable effort, you suggest I don't bother.  Sorry.
>

meth is bad, troll

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

#545993

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)

I'm not seeing the relevance to your links.  Sorry.

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

#546013

On 1/16/2016 8:41 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)
>
> I'm not seeing the relevance to your links.  Sorry.
>

troll on meth

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

#546029

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:41:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)
> 
> I'm not seeing the relevance to your links.  Sorry.

The new should be explained in terms of 
the existing that explains already.  Often 
new discoveries don't invalidate as they 
supercede (supersede).  

So, some new fundamental feature would explain 
those, and some new emergent feature would be 
explained by those.

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

#546031

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:41:20 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:41:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)
> > 
> > I'm not seeing the relevance to your links.  Sorry.
> 
> The new should be explained in terms of 
> the existing that explains already.

So, you've taken it upon yourself to establish new rules of science?  

> Often 
> new discoveries don't invalidate as they 
> supercede (supersede).  
> 
> So, some new fundamental feature would explain 
> those, and some new emergent feature would be 
> explained by those.

You are using the phrase, "emergent features," completely out of context.  You use big words in order to create the effect that you are intelligent.  But that is the tactic of an idiot.

Science is about facts and truth.  It is not about using big words to sound intelligent.

Find a new hobby.  Science ain't for you.  You are an idiot.

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

#546036

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:52:54 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:41:20 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:41:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwitterion ???
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry)
> > > 
> > > I'm not seeing the relevance to your links.  Sorry.
> > 
> > The new should be explained in terms of 
> > the existing that explains already.
> 
> So, you've taken it upon yourself to establish new rules of science?  
> 
> > Often 
> > new discoveries don't invalidate as they 
> > supercede (supersede).  
> > 
> > So, some new fundamental feature would explain 
> > those, and some new emergent feature would be 
> > explained by those.
> 
> You are using the phrase, "emergent features," completely out of context.  You use big words in order to create the effect that you are intelligent.  But that is the tactic of an idiot.
> 
> Science is about facts and truth.  It is not about using big words to sound intelligent.
> 
> Find a new hobby.  Science ain't for you.  You are an idiot.

You can see my opinion 
from what I've posted.

What I meant about emergent feature 
was of intermolecular features, then 
in the droplet realm that is macro to 
that, but still micro to us, of the 
universal (polar) solvent that is water, 
courtesy surface tension and beading, 
why that leads to a variety of features 
in effect in terms of otherwise idealized 
(or "mathematical") areas (surfaces).

I'm a theorist, I really don't care what 
you say, only whether it's true.

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

#546043

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 11:44:14 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson 

> What I meant about emergent feature 
> was of intermolecular features,

You are using words that are unnecessary and you are explaining what doesn't need explaining.  

> then 
> in the droplet realm that is macro to 
> that, but still micro to us, of the 
> universal (polar) solvent that is water, 

Water is polar. It is a solvent. This is common knowledge. 

> courtesy surface tension and beading, 
> why that leads to a variety of features 
> in effect in terms of otherwise idealized 
> (or "mathematical") areas (surfaces).
> 
> I'm a theorist, I really don't care what 
> you say, only whether it's true.

Sorry to have been insulting.  Obviously you are from outside the somewhat narrow disciplines that study water.  I suppose I underestimate the complexity of the field.  I try to use the language of chemistry and physics. That has been an adjustment for me because my history diverted from chemistry and physics into meteorology and geography, and even some evolutionary theory, and now I am returning to relearn the language of the hard science.  But you are using the language of the Science of Complexity and Chaos Theory, and that is not productive.

I don't know how to advise you.  Sorry.

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

#546062

On 1/17/2016 2:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 11:44:14 PM UTC-8, Ross A.
> Finlayson
>
>> What I meant about emergent feature was of intermolecular
>> features,
>
> You are using words that are unnecessary and you are explaining what
> doesn't need explaining.

James, if you have trouble understanding "intermolecular" you can look 
it up online, try using "Google", then fill in the blank with 
"intermolecular", and press the return button.

Your sentence above indicates you have difficulty  stating your thoughts 
clearly because of limited vocabulary, "explaining what doesn't need 
explaining", stoned?


>
>> then in the droplet realm that is macro to that, but still micro to
>> us, of the universal (polar) solvent that is water,
>
> Water is polar. It is a solvent. This is common knowledge.

prove it.

>
>> courtesy surface tension and beading, why that leads to a variety
>> of features in effect in terms of otherwise idealized (or
>> "mathematical") areas (surfaces).
>>
>> I'm a theorist, I really don't care what you say, only whether it's
>> true.
>
> Sorry to have been insulting.

you are a troll, it is what you do.


<snip crap>

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

#545836

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 12:59:28 AM UTC-8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> Seems you found something which is news to you.
> 
> But actually it is quite old on this planet.

Many people know the pieces of the puzzle. I put the pieces of the puzzle together to make it easy for people to get beyond the intellectual pull of some of the misconceptions that I addressed therein.

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

#545969

On 1/16/2016 10:54 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 12:59:28 AM UTC-8, Helmut Wabnig
> wrote:
>
>> Seems you found something which is news to you.
>>
>> But actually it is quite old on this planet.
>
> Many people know the pieces of the puzzle. You put the pieces of the
> puzzle together to make it easy for people to get beyond the
> intellectual pull of some of the misconceptions that You addressed
> therein.
>


Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.


Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.

These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.

There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.

In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.

The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.

These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements.  They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

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

#545955

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 12:59:28 AM UTC-8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> But actually it is quite old on this planet.

Older than man?

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

#545970

On 1/16/2016 6:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 12:59:28 AM UTC-8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
>> But actually it is quite old on this planet.
>
> Older than man?
>

Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.


Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.

These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.

There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.

In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.

The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.

These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements.  They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

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

#545958

On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it.
> Nobody ever has.

That's a bizarre claim. How can you possibly know that?

Anyway, it's not true, as you would have discovered if you'd bothered to 
look.

http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf

Sylvia.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web