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

Groups > sci.physics > #545002 > unrolled thread

Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 21:58 -0800
    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 21:16 -0800
      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 17:08 +0000
        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 18:27 +0100
          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800
        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800
          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:35 -0800
            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 13:43 -0500
            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:03 -0800
              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 12:09 -0800
                Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:13 -0800
                  Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 21:19 -0800
                    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 22:03 -0800
                      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 22:38 -0800
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:05 -0800
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:25 -0800
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 12:27 -0800
                      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:58 -0600
                    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-15 07:06 +0000
                      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:22 -0800
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-15 20:33 +0000
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:22 -0800
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:07 -0600
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-16 00:14 +0000
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 18:52 -0600
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:12 -0600
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 15:34 -0600
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:23 -0800
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:53 -0600
                                Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 09:01 -0800
                                  Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 00:30 -0800
                      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 12:34 -0800
          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 18:53 +0000
            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-14 19:13 +0000
            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:10 -0800
              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 20:29 +0000
                Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:42 -0800
                  Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-14 21:46 +0000
                    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 18:15 -0800
                      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-15 17:23 +0000
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:14 -0800
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-15 19:07 +0000
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:07 -0800
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:31 -0600
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 12:19 -0800
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 16:31 -0600
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:17 -0800
                        Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:11 -0800
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-15 18:00 -0600
                          Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-16 00:06 +0000
                            Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:57 -0800
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-16 06:10 +0000
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:34 -0600
                              Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:21 -0600
    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:36 -0800
      Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:16 -0800
    Re: Why Wind Turbines (May) Cause Drought James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:31 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#545667

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:05:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> Jim Pennino
> 
> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are like church ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.  Frickin retards.

Someone that refuses to even look at hundreds of years of research and
data that show his ideas to be obviously false has severe mental problem.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#545682

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-8, 

> Someone that refuses to even look at hundreds of years of research 

So, let me get this straight, there are hundreds of 
years of data available at your fingertips, and you 
can't formulate an argument?  

Did I get that right?

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

#545703

On 1/15/2016 3:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-8,
>
>> Someone that refuses to even look at hundreds of years of research
>
> So, let me get this straight, there are hundreds of
> years of data available at your fingertips, and you
> can't formulate an argument?
>
> Did I get that right?
>

Translation:
"You say there is stuff out there, lots of stuff. OK, I don't believe 
you. And so it's on you to convince me by summarizing it here and 
assembling a compelling argument about it here. Oh, by the way, I don't 
intend to ever look at the data that you present, because I'm not 
actually interested in the facts (which in all honesty I've heard about 
many times) but am instead just keenly interested in your attempt to put 
together the argument, because I do so enjoy bitch-slap fests."

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

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

#545733

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-8, 
> 
>> Someone that refuses to even look at hundreds of years of research 
> 
> So, let me get this straight, there are hundreds of 
> years of data available at your fingertips, and you 
> can't formulate an argument?  
> 
> Did I get that right?

Nope, I don't need an arguement to show someone who refuses to look at
all the books on the subject is quite insane. It is self evident.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#545749

On 1/15/2016 3:22 PM, James Troll McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-8,
>
>> Someone that refuses to even look at hundreds of years of research
>
> So, let me get this straight, there are hundreds of
> years of data available at your fingertips, and you
> can't formulate an argument?

at *your* fingertips, but *you refuse*.

  => trolls die horrible deaths  <=


>
> Did I get that right?
>

  nope.

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

#546120

On 1/15/2016 12:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are like church
> ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.  Frickin retards.

Translation: "If you guys don't engage in arguing with me, your stance 
vs mine, then you're retards."

This is to be compared with the common wisdom that you don't engage in 
arguments with 3rd graders, even if they call you a retard.


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

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

#546132

On 1/17/2016 3:12 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/15/2016 12:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are
>> like church
>> ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.
>> Frickin retards.
>
> Translation: "If you guys don't engage in arguing with me, your stance
> vs mine, then you're retards."
>
> This is to be compared with the common wisdom that you don't engage in
> arguments with 3rd graders, even if they call you a retard.
>
>

James has a set of stale one liners he uses in the last phase of 
trolling, the insulting phase.

It is amazing how his writing sounds if one replaces his "you" with "I", 
then "me" with  "you", etc.  Then you realize he unknowingly into heavy 
physiological projection, he has a lot of old baggage.

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

#547107

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/17/2016 3:12 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 1/15/2016 12:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are
> >> like church
> >> ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.
> >> Frickin retards.
> >
> > Translation: "If you guys don't engage in arguing with me, your stance
> > vs mine, then you're retards."
> >
> > This is to be compared with the common wisdom that you don't engage in
> > arguments with 3rd graders, even if they call you a retard.
> >
> >
> 
> James has a set of stale one liners he uses in the last phase of 
> trolling, the insulting phase.
> 
> It is amazing how his writing sounds if one replaces his "you" with "I", 
> then "me" with  "you", etc.  Then you realize he unknowingly into heavy 
> physiological projection, he has a lot of old baggage.

Sounds like a personal problem.

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

#547119

On 1/21/2016 9:23 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/17/2016 3:12 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2016 12:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are
>>>> like church
>>>> ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.
>>>> Frickin retards.

>>> Translation: "If you guys don't engage in arguing with me, your stance
>>> vs mine, then you're retards."
>>>
>>> This is to be compared with the common wisdom that you don't engage in
>>> arguments with 3rd graders, even if they call you a retard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> James has a set of stale one liners he uses in the last phase of
>> trolling, the insulting phase.

>> It is amazing how his writing sounds if one replaces his "you" with "I",
>> then "me" with  "you", etc.  Then you realize he unknowingly into heavy
>> physiological projection, he has a lot of old baggage.
>
> Sounds like a personal problem.
>
just keeping your posts at the top, i see.
that is why you respond to your own posts,
you must be scoring it by # of views.

JSH did that but he was a master at keeping threads going, up to 130 
responces on a single thread, not looks either.

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

#547543

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 9:23 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 1/17/2016 3:12 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> On 1/15/2016 12:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> You simpletons couldn't muster an argument to save your life.  You are
> >>>> like church
> >>>> ladies quoting the bible except you have the internet as your bible.
> >>>> Frickin retards.
> 
> >>> Translation: "If you guys don't engage in arguing with me, your stance
> >>> vs mine, then you're retards."
> >>>
> >>> This is to be compared with the common wisdom that you don't engage in
> >>> arguments with 3rd graders, even if they call you a retard.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> James has a set of stale one liners he uses in the last phase of
> >> trolling, the insulting phase.
> 
> >> It is amazing how his writing sounds if one replaces his "you" with "I",
> >> then "me" with  "you", etc.  Then you realize he unknowingly into heavy
> >> physiological projection, he has a lot of old baggage.
> >
> > Sounds like a personal problem.
> >
> just keeping your posts at the top, i see.
> that is why you respond to your own posts,
> you must be scoring it by # of views.
> 
> JSH did that but he was a master at keeping threads going, up to 130 
> responces on a single thread, not looks either.

DVDSXC

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

#548240

 DVDSXC

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

#545665

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:05:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:03:45 PM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> >> > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > > Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > > Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > Here are some facts for you to refute...
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > http://whyfiles.org/2010/the-weather-guys-heavy-air/
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/is-humid-air-heavier-than-dry-air.htm
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29
> >> > > 
> >> > > Relevance?
> >> > 
> >> > Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem?
> >> 
> >> Read other posts to understanding the probitive issue here.  All the links you posted here are based on anecdote and consensus, not science.  
> >> 
> >> Science has techniques for distinguishing between collective beliefs and facts.  But they don't work unless you apply them.
> > 
> > You state that all the links I provided are based on anecdotes and consensus, and not science, but apparently you didn't actually read, for example, the Wiki link...
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29 
> > 
> > ... which is, in almost its entirety, nothing but science, filled with formulae and facts.
> > 
> > You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO facts and/or calculations to support your own position. Go ahead, show us all where the faults lie in the Wiki article, if you can, and good luck with that!
> 
> You realize you are arguing with a lunatic?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Yeah, it is pretty obvious...

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

#545421

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:

>On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.

>Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.

>> Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.

>Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.

No, fact.  Pilots, in particular, can easily tell the differences in the
amount of lift air provides.  Lift is proportional to density, and they
know (and can tell) that cold air provides better lift than warm air
because it's denser, and dry air provides better lift than humid air,
again because it is denser.  Best recreational flying is in cold, dry air.

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

#545425

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>>> Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.
> 
>>Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.
> 
>>> Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
> 
>>Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
> 
> No, fact.  Pilots, in particular, can easily tell the differences in the
> amount of lift air provides.  Lift is proportional to density, and they
> know (and can tell) that cold air provides better lift than warm air
> because it's denser, and dry air provides better lift than humid air,
> again because it is denser.  Best recreational flying is in cold, dry air.

And the way it is known without a doubt is the length of the takeoff
run.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#545436

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:53:24 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> >> Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.
> 
> >Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.
> 
> >> Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
> 
> >Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
> 
> No, fact.  Pilots, in particular, can easily tell the differences in the
> amount of lift air provides.

Anecdotal.  The same effect can be explained by moist air increasing drag.  You/we need a test that allows us to distinguish between these two different causes.  Pilots aren't going to know (or care).


Lift is proportional to density,

And it's inversely proportional to drag . . . so . . . uh.  Now what say you?


> and they
> know (and can tell) that cold air provides better lift than warm air
> because it's denser, and dry air provides better lift than humid air,
> again because it is denser.  Best recreational flying is in cold, dry air.

I agree with your last statement. Unfortunately your understanding of the cause is based on anecdote, not science.

What experiment do you think would allow us to distinguish between these competing explanations.  Hint: it can't be found on the internet.

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

#545453

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:53:24 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> >On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 
>> >> Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.
>> 
>> >Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.
>> 
>> >> Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
>> 
>> >Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
>> 
>> No, fact.  Pilots, in particular, can easily tell the differences in the
>> amount of lift air provides.

>Anecdotal.  The same effect can be explained by moist air increasing 
>drag.

Drag is different.  Look at the force diagram on an airplane, from an
intro to flight course.  Lift is upward.  Gravity is downward.  Thrust
is forward.  Drag is backward.  As you can see, lift and drag act in
different directions.

>  You/we need a test that allows us to distinguish between these two 
>different causes.

Over 100 years of flight experience, wind tunnels etc.

>  Pilots aren't going to know (or care).

Of course they care! They have a vested interest in whether the runway is
going to be long enough before starting the rollout.

>Lift is proportional to density,

>And it's inversely proportional to drag . . . so . . . uh.  Now what say you?

Not applicable, as they act in different directions.  Also, a heavy
loaded plane will have the same drag as an empty light one (aerodynamics 
is not changed), but needs more lift.

>What experiment do you think would allow us to distinguish between these 
>competing explanations.  Hint: it can't be found on the internet.

Why wouldn't data from over 100 years of flight engineering be on the
internet?

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

#545461

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:53:24 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:08:57 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, not heavier.
> >> 
> >> >Actually, that is a myth.  Moist air is always heavier.
> >> 
> >> >> Any experienced pilot or meteorologist can tell you that.
> >> 
> >> >Their opinions are based on anecdote and consensus, not facts.
> >> 
> >> No, fact.  Pilots, in particular, can easily tell the differences in the
> >> amount of lift air provides.
> 
> >Anecdotal.  The same effect can be explained by moist air increasing 
> >drag.
> 
> Drag is different.

Same effect.

  Look at the force diagram on an airplane, from an
> intro to flight course.  Lift is upward.  Gravity is downward.  Thrust
> is forward.  Drag is backward.  As you can see, lift and drag act in
> different directions.
> 
> >  You/we need a test that allows us to distinguish between these two 
> >different causes.
> 
> Over 100 years of flight experience, wind tunnels etc.

Anecdote plus anecdote equals more anecdote.  

> 
> >  Pilots aren't going to know (or care).
> 
> Of course they care! They have a vested interest in whether the runway is
> going to be long enough before starting the rollout.

Same result either way.  Try to follow the conversation.

> 
> >Lift is proportional to density,
> 
> >And it's inversely proportional to drag . . . so . . . uh.  Now what say you?
> 
> Not applicable, as they act in different directions.  Also, a heavy
> loaded plane will have the same drag as an empty light one (aerodynamics 
> is not changed), but needs more lift.
> 
> >What experiment do you think would allow us to distinguish between these 
> >competing explanations.  Hint: it can't be found on the internet.
> 
> Why wouldn't data from over 100 years of flight engineering be on the
> internet?

Let's suppose it was a thousand years of data.  Would that make any difference at all?  More anecdote just produces more anecdote.

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

#545487

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> >Anecdotal.  The same effect can be explained by moist air increasing 
>> >drag.
>> 
>> Drag is different.

>Same effect.

No, it is not.  Drag is a force backwards.  Lift is a force upwards.

>  Look at the force diagram on an airplane, from an
>> intro to flight course.  Lift is upward.  Gravity is downward.  Thrust
>> is forward.  Drag is backward.  As you can see, lift and drag act in
>> different directions.

>> >  You/we need a test that allows us to distinguish between these two 
>> >different causes.
>> 
>> Over 100 years of flight experience, wind tunnels etc.

>Anecdote plus anecdote equals more anecdote.  

Is that the best argument that you have? "Everything is anecdote, 100+
years if aerospace science and engineering be damned!" (not to mention
who knows how many years of weather science)

We have made jets fly much faster than sound, rockets that reached the 
planets and you really think nobody but you has figured out the density
of humid air?

>> >  Pilots aren't going to know (or care).
>> 
>> Of course they care! They have a vested interest in whether the runway is
>> going to be long enough before starting the rollout.

>Same result either way.  Try to follow the conversation.

A pilot isn't going to care whether his fully-loaded, fully fueled 
aircraft can make it off a runway on a hot, humid day?

>> >Lift is proportional to density,
>> 
>> >And it's inversely proportional to drag . . . so . . . uh.  Now what say you?
>> 
>> Not applicable, as they act in different directions.  Also, a heavy
>> loaded plane will have the same drag as an empty light one (aerodynamics 
>> is not changed), but needs more lift.

No comment?

>> >What experiment do you think would allow us to distinguish between these 
>> >competing explanations.  Hint: it can't be found on the internet.
>> 
>> Why wouldn't data from over 100 years of flight engineering be on the
>> internet?

>Let's suppose it was a thousand years of data.  Would that make any 
>difference at all?  More anecdote just produces more anecdote.

Science isn't anecdote.

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

#545535

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:46:22 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

MM:
Drag is a force backwards.  Lift is a force upwards.

JM:
Yes.  I know.  Hmm.  Now that I think about it, drag is not the significant factor that reduces lift in moist air.  But what you are suggesting is wrong.  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.  

What might these other factors be?

Before I answer take into account the following facts:

The moisture in moist air is not steam, it is little micro droplets/clusters of LIQUID H2O.
Liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of saying that it absorbs energy.  In fact water's ability to absorb energy is greater than that of any other liquid.
The energy that causes lift in an airplane doesn't come from the engine of the airplane.  The energy that causes lift comes from air pressure--it comes from the atmosphere itself.  The energy that comes from the engine of the airplane is used to overcome drag.  But there is a finite amount of energy per volume of air.  (In other words, 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 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.  IOW, it is the high heat capacity of the liquid H2O in air that reduces lift.  This is the reason why heavier, moist air reduces lift. So, stating that you know moist air is lighter because it reduces lift is scientifically invalid.  It's an ignorant thing to claim.  

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. I'm trained as a meteorologist.  So, I know.)

JM:
Anecdote plus anecdote equals more anecdote.  

MM:
Is that the best argument that you have?

JM:
It's the only argument I need.

MM:
"Everything is anecdote, 100+years if aerospace science and engineering be damned!" (not to mention who knows how many years of weather science)

JM:
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.

Using anecdote won't always lead one to a wrong conclusion.  But it is never a scientifically valid argument. Hundreds of years of anecdote is not more valid than 2 hours of controlled experiment.

MM:
We have made jets fly much faster than sound, rockets that reached the planets and you really think nobody but you has figured out the density of humid air?

JM:
I know they haven't.  Meteorologists refuse to measure it.  (That is why you couldn't find it on the internet.)  Moreover, 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.  (Climatology is worse.)

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

#545632

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:46:22 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

>MM:
>Drag is a force backwards.  Lift is a force upwards.

>JM:
>Yes.  I know.  Hmm.  Now that I think about it, drag is not the significant
>factor that reduces lift in moist air.  But what you are suggesting is 
>wrong.  Moist air is heavier, not lighter, than dry air.

The gas laws, and actual measurements state otherwise.  I will go with
science rather than your anecdotes.

>   And claiming 
>that reduced drag associated with moist air is evidence that 
>substantiates the notion that moist air is lighter is an invalid 
>argument. 

Nobody made that argument.  Less density means less mass of air is 
affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air.

> Because it fails to account for other factors that may 
actually be causing the reduction in lift.

>What might these other factors be?

The reduced density of humid air.

>Before I answer take into account the following facts:

>The moisture in moist air is not steam, it is little micro 
>droplets/clusters of LIQUID H2O.
>Liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of 
>saying that it absorbs energy.  In fact water's ability to absorb energy 
>is greater than that of any other liquid.

The action of wings has nothing to do with the energy content of water.
It has everything to do with redirecting the mass of air causing a force
(lift) on wings upward.  Sailboats tacking upwind do the same.

<snip crap>

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

Actually I've seen it done in in a physics lab when I was in college. Very
delicate instruments can weigh the mass of a volume of gas, and I saw it 
done with dry air and humid air.  The humid air was lighter.

>JM:
>Anecdote plus anecdote equals more anecdote. =20

>MM:
>Is that the best argument that you have?

>JM:
>It's the only argument I need.

So you don't have any arguments of any substance.

>MM:
>"Everything is anecdote, 100+years if aerospace science and engineering be =
>damned!" (not to mention who knows how many years of weather science)

>JM:
>If you measure you know.

As I stated, I've seen it done.

>Using anecdote won't always lead one to a wrong conclusion.  But it is 
>never a scientifically valid argument. Hundreds of years of anecdote is 
>not more valid than 2 hours of controlled experiment.

Which is why I value science over your anecdotes.

>MM:
>We have made jets fly much faster than sound, rockets that reached the 
>planets and you really think nobody but you has figured out the density 
>of humid air?

>JM:
>I know they haven't.  Meteorologists refuse to measure it.

Once again I've seen it measured.

>  (That is why you couldn't find it on the internet.)

You know, there's a really cool website out there.  It's called
google.com. I used it just now and in a second, I found all kinds of info
on the density of humid air.  Yoou should try it sometime.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web