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

Groups > sci.physics > #559258 > unrolled thread

Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:29 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:36 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:43 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 -0600
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:08 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-04 13:17 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:22 -0600
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:39 -0800
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 22:12 +0000
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:42 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:38 -0800
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:05 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:28 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 18:57 -0800
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:05 -0800

#559258 — Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn)

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:10:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn 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.

Dense cold air gives more lift than warmer thin air. That is a given and good science tells you why. TreBert

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#559263

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:30:05 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:10:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn 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.
> 
> Dense cold air gives more lift than warmer thin air. That is a given and good science tells you why. TreBert

Dullwitted nitwits turn science into cliches, advertising their stupidity.

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

#559297

On 3/4/16 12:29 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Dense cold air gives more lift than warmer thin air.


   Nope -- Moist air is lighter than dry air, often generating upward
   moving air currents -- Basic Meteorology, reber.

   Here's what you need to learn, reber:

   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas, so there is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559302

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/4/16 12:29 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > Dense cold air gives more lift than warmer thin air.
> 
> 
>    Nope 

Sam,

What does it indicate when somebody fails to address somebody else's thinking directly? Consider what conclusions an intelligent reader would draw from that.

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

#559304

On 3/4/16 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> Sam,
>
> What does it indicate when somebody fails to address somebody else's thinking directly? Consider what conclusions an intelligent reader would draw from that.


   Here are clues from the meteorological community, James. You should
   question yourself in understanding these facts:


   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas, so there is nothing to see.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559307

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/4/16 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > What does it indicate when somebody fails to address somebody else's thinking directly? Consider what conclusions an intelligent reader would draw from that.
> 
> 
>    Here are clues from the meteorological community, James. You should
>    question yourself in understanding these facts:

Answer my question, Sam.

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

#559321

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:08:29 PM UTC-5, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 3/4/16 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > > Sam,
> > >
> > > What does it indicate when somebody fails to address somebody else's
> > > thinking directly? Consider what conclusions an intelligent reader
> > > would draw from that.
> > 
> > 
> >    Here are clues from the meteorological community, James. You should
> >    question yourself in understanding these facts:
> 
> Answer my question, Sam.

JM, your question is a version of the
 "When did you stop beating your wife?"
question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.

here is the question I keep asking you:
Where did you get your degree in Physics?
ed 

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

#559323

On 3/4/2016 3:17 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> JM, your question is a version of the
>   "When did you stop beating your wife?"
> question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.
>
> here is the question I keep asking you:
> Where did you get your degree in Physics?
> ed

I think you will find that there are several people here who claim to be 
physicists because they are doing what they think physicists do. This 
does not hinge on whether physicists would agree with them.

One of the common behaviors with such people are statements like, "I am 
the only TRUE physicist here" or "Most self-styled physicists don't know 
any longer what being a physicist really means" or "The vast majority of 
the science community are deluded sheep, but there are a few of us still 
remaining that are free thinkers and still truly do science" or "A real 
physicist doubts everything" or "Pieces of paper or cheap credentials do 
not a physicist make."

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#559331

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:22:15 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/4/2016 3:17 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > JM, your question is a version of the
> >   "When did you stop beating your wife?"
> > question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.
> >
> > here is the question I keep asking you:
> > Where did you get your degree in Physics?
> > ed
> 
> I think you will find that there are several people here who claim to be 
> physicists because they are doing what they think physicists do. This 
> does not hinge on whether physicists would agree with them.
> 
> One of the common behaviors with such people are statements like, "I am 
> the only TRUE physicist here" or "Most self-styled physicists don't know 
> any longer what being a physicist really means" or "The vast majority of 
> the science community are deluded sheep, but there are a few of us still 
> remaining that are free thinkers and still truly do science" or "A real 
> physicist doubts everything" or "Pieces of paper or cheap credentials do 
> not a physicist make."

What do you think it indicates when you avoid discussing the subject in the subject heading?

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

#559365

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:22:15 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 3/4/2016 3:17 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> > JM, your question is a version of the
>> >   "When did you stop beating your wife?"
>> > question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.
>> >
>> > here is the question I keep asking you:
>> > Where did you get your degree in Physics?
>> > ed
>> 
>> I think you will find that there are several people here who claim to be 
>> physicists because they are doing what they think physicists do. This 
>> does not hinge on whether physicists would agree with them.
>> 
>> One of the common behaviors with such people are statements like, "I am 
>> the only TRUE physicist here" or "Most self-styled physicists don't know 
>> any longer what being a physicist really means" or "The vast majority of 
>> the science community are deluded sheep, but there are a few of us still 
>> remaining that are free thinkers and still truly do science" or "A real 
>> physicist doubts everything" or "Pieces of paper or cheap credentials do 
>> not a physicist make."
> 
> What do you think it indicates when you avoid discussing the subject
> in the subject heading?

That your subject heading is bat shit crazy.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559334

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:22:15 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/4/2016 3:17 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > JM, your question is a version of the
> >   "When did you stop beating your wife?"
> > question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.
> >
> > here is the question I keep asking you:
> > Where did you get your degree in Physics?
> > ed
> 
> I think you will find that there are several people here who claim to be 
> physicists because they are doing what they think physicists do. This 
> does not hinge on whether physicists would agree with them.
> 
> One of the common behaviors with such people are statements like, "I am 
> the only TRUE physicist here" or "Most self-styled physicists don't know 
> any longer what being a physicist really means" or "The vast majority of 
> the science community are deluded sheep, but there are a few of us still 
> remaining that are free thinkers and still truly do science" or "A real 
> physicist doubts everything" or "Pieces of paper or cheap credentials do 
> not a physicist make."
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Also, I think your killfile is broken.

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

#559329

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:17:08 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

> JM, your question is a version of the
>  "When did you stop beating your wife?"
> question. So it is basically useless in an intelligent discussion.
> 
> here is the question I keep asking you:
> Where did you get your degree in Physics?
> ed

Which one?

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

#559408

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/4/16 1:48 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > What does it indicate when somebody fails to address somebody else's thinking directly? Consider what conclusions an intelligent reader would draw from that.
> 
> 
>    Here are clues from the meteorological community, James. You should
>    question yourself in understanding these facts:
> Sam keep in mind hot air sits on cold air Thus its colder denser air that holds it up. Yes? It takes energy 
>    Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
>    continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
>    atmosphere.
> 
>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>    gas, so there is nothing to see.
> 
>  > Water vapour (H2O molecules)
> 
>  > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
>  > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
>  > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
>  > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
>  > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
>  > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
>  > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
>  > lead to clouds.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559415

On 3/4/16 5:05 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Sam keep in mind hot air sits on cold air Thus its colder denser air that holds it up. Yes? It takes energy


   No it does not take energy.  Reber you and James both have trouble
   understanding the concept of energy.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#559467

Sam Wormley
On 3/4/16 5:05 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: 
> Sam keep in mind hot air sits on cold air Thus its colder denser air that holds it up. Yes? It takes energy 


   No it does not take energy.  Reber you and James both have trouble 
   understanding the concept of energy. 
---------------

Bert has trouble understanding a crayon

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

#559409

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/4/16 12:29 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > Dense cold air gives more lift than warmer thin air.
> 
> 
>    Nope -- Moist air is lighter than dry air, often generating upward
>    moving air currents -- Basic Meteorology, reber.
> 
>    Here's what you need to learn, reber:
> 
>    Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
>    continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
>    atmosphere.
> 
>    Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
>    gas, so there is nothing to see.
> 
>  > Water vapour (H2O molecules)
> 
>  > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
>  > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
>  > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
>  > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
>  > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
>  > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
>  > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
>  > lead to clouds.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web