Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #545002 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-12 21:58 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 22:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 57 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2484a99-0a2c-4dc4-85c8-d86e2302c82d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545632 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > 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. I mispoke. I meant less lift not less drag. (You did make that argument, right?) > Less density means less mass of air is > affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air. Right this is your (unproven) premise. I say the weight of this moist air is higher but the lift is lower due to the increase in energy absorbtion associated with the increased moisture. > > > 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. This is your (unproven) premise. > > >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 does. More water equates to more energy absorptions. > It has everything to do with redirecting the mass of air causing a force > (lift) on wings upward. Sailboats tacking upwind do the same. I understand aerodynamic better than you. The energy that pushes a wing comes from air pressure. > > <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. I am sure you are lieing. Where is the data? Did you dog eat it? > >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. Same as you in that respect. > > >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. I know you are lieing. > > >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. Too bad nobody took notes in your imaginary 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. > > Once again I've seen it measured. Once again, I'm sure you are lieing. > > > (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. It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7bg1m$krl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545638 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> > 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. >I mispoke. I meant less lift not less drag. (You did make that >argument, right?) Well, the reverse, actually. I said the reduced density of moist air is why lift is reduced. >> Less density means less mass of air is >> affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air. >Right this is your (unproven) premise. I say the weight of this moist >air is higher but the lift is lower due to the increase in energy >absorbtion associated with the increased moisture. Your unproven anecdotes conflict with actual science. >> > 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. >This is your (unproven) premise. There are many universities with aeronautical engineering and meteorology curriculum that prove it many times over to their students. >> >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 does. More water equates to more energy absorptions. Provide the physics behind this claim, how a moving wing provides energy to your mythical water droplets. >> It has everything to do with redirecting the mass of air causing a force >> (lift) on wings upward. Sailboats tacking upwind do the same. >I understand aerodynamic better than you. The energy that pushes a wing comes from air pressure. Hardly. Not if you don't even know the density of humid air or how wings work. >> 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. >I am sure you are lieing. Where is the data? Did you dog eat it? I knew you would never believe that. Sorry, but that was a couple decades ago so I no longer have notes. The demonstration had several parts, a sealed container was measured when containing alternately vacuum, dry air, humid air, helium, CO2 and a heavy gas (don't remember what, may have been argon or a freon (hey, this was when releasing freons in the air was OK!) or something. All (except the vacuum) was at STP. They may have done pressurized measurements as well, I don't remember. And without delicate instruments: A full scuba tank is noticeably heavier than an empty one. Full is about 3,000 PSI so its air is 200 times denser than atmospheric. So a "sensitive" scale really needs to be only about 200 times more sensitive than a bathroom scale to give meaningful results. It's easy to measure air density. To anyone else interested: One of the gas laws for an ideal gas is that for a particular pressure, temperature and volume, the number of molecules of gas is constant. (PV = nRT) Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and its average molecular weight is 29. (N2 is 28, O2 is 32). If air contains water vapor, some of the air molecules will be displaced by water H2O molecules. H2O has a molecular weight of 18. This is why the density of humid air is reduced. If such things as (H2O)n dropplets existed but were small enough to act as a gas, humid air would be more dense and wings would work better in humid air. Even (H2O)2 (MW=36) would make air denser. That is your science lesson for the day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7810a4b4-16c9-4800-b47c-9aabc17a0e98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545650 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:46 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > I mispoke. I meant less lift not less drag. (You did > > make that argument, right?) > > Well, the reverse, actually. I said the reduced density > of moist air is why lift is reduced. Right, this is your (unproven) premise. As I stated. > > > Less density means less mass of air is > > > affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air. > > > Right this is your (unproven) premise. I say the weight > > of this moist air is higher but the lift is lower due > > to the increase in energy absorbtion associated with > > the increased moisture. > > Your unproven anecdotes conflict with actual science. Actually, science involves facts, not imagination. > > > > 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. > > > This is your (unproven) premise. > > There are many universities with aeronautical > engineering and meteorology curriculum that prove it > many times over to their students. So, why do you think they are hiding this evidence from you? > > > > 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. > > > Heat (energy) capacity. More water equates to more > > energy absorptions. > > Provide the physics behind this claim, how a moving wing provides > energy to your mythical water droplets. Prove me wrong. (Look it up.) You need to take responsibility for your own education. > > > It has everything to do with redirecting the mass of > > > air causing a force (lift) on wings upward. > > > Sailboats tacking upwind do the same. > > > It's not just that simple. I understand aerodynamic better > > than you. The energy that pushes a wing (lift) comes from air > > pressure. > > Hardly. Not if you don't even know the density of humid air or how > wings work. I am an expert in aerodynamics. The air foil reduces the pressure on the top of the wing. The pressure on the bottom of the wing is where energy is extracted from the atmosphere. You can extract less energy from moist air because H2O absorbs much of it. (Do research on high heat capacity of H2O.) Density is a factor, as you suggest. But it is not the only factor. The myth is 1) that the moisture in moist air is gaseous H2O. It isn't. it's liquid droplets. And, 2) that the reduced lift associated with moist air demonstrates that moist air is less dense. All other factor being the same, moist air is actually heavier than dry air because the microdroplets are heavier (weight/volume) than the N2 and O2 that they replace. Your misconception stems from the plainly dimwitted belief that H2O turns to gaseous H2O when it evaporates. This myth persists because meteorologist's models contain this assumption and they don't want the public to figure out that they are a bunch of nitwits when it comes to understanding storms and other aspects of atmospheric flow. So they protect the perceived validity of their models by keeping the public in the dark about the fact that the atmosphere is too cool to support gaseous H2O. So the issue is very political and more entrenched than global warming BS. (I bet you believe in global warming too, right?) BTW, air pressure, not convection, is the engine of atmospheric flow. So, the true nature of atmospheric flow has more to do with the jet age (aerodynamics) than it does the hot air balloon age (convection). (See my other posts on this NG for details.) Meteorology is living in the past. > > I am sure you are lieing. Where is the data? Did you dog eat it? > > I knew you would never believe that. I knew your experiment was imaginary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7gfmb$1b32$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545652 |
On 1/15/2016 2:07 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:46 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> I mispoke. I meant less lift not less drag. (You did >>> make that argument, right?) >> >> Well, the reverse, actually. I said the reduced density >> of moist air is why lift is reduced. > > Right, this is your (unproven) premise. As I stated. > >>>> Less density means less mass of air is >>>> affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air. >> >>> Right this is your (unproven) premise. I say the weight >>> of this moist air is higher but the lift is lower due >>> to the increase in energy absorbtion associated with >>> the increased moisture. >> >> Your unproven anecdotes conflict with actual science. > > Actually, science involves facts, not imagination. > >>>>> 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. >> >>> This is your (unproven) premise. >> >> There are many universities with aeronautical >> engineering and meteorology curriculum that prove it >> many times over to their students. > > So, why do you think they are hiding this evidence from you? > >>>>> 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. >> >>> Heat (energy) capacity. More water equates to more >>> energy absorptions. >> >> Provide the physics behind this claim, how a moving wing provides >> energy to your mythical water droplets. > > Prove me wrong. (Look it up.) You need to take responsibility > for your own education. > >>>> It has everything to do with redirecting the mass of >>>> air causing a force (lift) on wings upward. >>>> Sailboats tacking upwind do the same. >> >>> It's not just that simple. I understand aerodynamic better >>> than you. The energy that pushes a wing (lift) comes from air >>> pressure. >> >> Hardly. Not if you don't even know the density of humid air or how >> wings work. > > I am an expert in aerodynamics. LIAR! > The air foil reduces the pressure > on the top of the wing. WRONG, forward motion is required! > The pressure on the bottom of the wing > is where energy is extracted from the atmosphere. WRONG ! the airplane puts energy into the atmosphere! such basic flaws indicate you do not know any science at all. <snip LIES> > >>> I am sure you are lieing. Where is the data? Did you dog eat it? >> >> I knew you would never believe that. > > I knew your experiment was imaginary. > troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0458aa00-8f80-4b85-9b17-fddf104c76d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545650 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:46 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > To anyone else interested: One of the gas laws for an > ideal gas is that for a particular pressure, temperature > and volume, the number of molecules of gas is constant. > (PV = nRT) Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and its > average molecular weight is 29. (N2 is 28, O2 is 32). > If air contains water vapor, some of the air molecules > will be displaced by water H2O molecules. Listen, you imbecile, for what you are saying to be true we would have to imagine that H2O turned to steam (gaseous H2O) when it evaporates. That is plainly absurd. There is no steam, gaseous H2O, in earth's atmosphere. It is all microdroplets/clusters. It is evaporate, not steam. > H2O has a molecular weight of 18. True, but irrelevant. Our atmosphere is too cool to support steam. You about have to have your head up your ass for this not to be obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 16:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bs1e$16vu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545657 |
On 1/15/2016 2:19 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:46 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> To anyone else interested: One of the gas laws for an >> ideal gas is that for a particular pressure, temperature >> and volume, the number of molecules of gas is constant. >> (PV = nRT) Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and its >> average molecular weight is 29. (N2 is 28, O2 is 32). >> If air contains water vapor, some of the air molecules >> will be displaced by water H2O molecules. > > Listen, you imbecile, control your anger, > for what you are saying to be true > we would have to imagine that H2O turned to steam (gaseous > H2O) when it evaporates. That is plainly absurd. There > is no steam, gaseous H2O, in earth's atmosphere. It is all microdroplets/clusters. It is evaporate, not steam. wrong, and after these many years, still stupid wrong. > >> H2O has a molecular weight of 18. H2O is 10.6% less dense than Heavy Water. your brain is 11 % less dense too. > > True, but irrelevant. Our atmosphere is too cool to support > steam. your atmosphere. Mine likes steam. > You about have to have your head up your ass for > this not to be obvious. another insult ! you are Troll obsessed with other's exit orifices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <841b4ad0-8529-48d7-9fa2-ff9bc295dc67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545632 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > >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. Well, then make an argument to that effect, you frickin moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 14:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed76a8de-55a6-4bda-b222-bd6ce9968c92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545632 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > Nobody made that argument. Less density means less mass > of air is affected by the wings making them less > effective in humid air. > 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. Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, indisputuably more dense than dry air. According to your dimwitted theory aircraft should have increased lift in clouds. We might even expect pilots to be looking for clouds to go skipping across the atmosphere. But the don't. You want to know why? Because lift is reduced in clouds, you idiot. You theory is nonsense. You are a simpleton that can't work out a mildly complex notion. Like a moron all you can do is repeat the one thing you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 18:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7c17n$1edm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545704 |
On 1/15/2016 4:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney > wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > >> Nobody made that argument. Less density means less mass of air is >> affected by the wings making them less effective in humid air. > >> 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. > > Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, indisputuably > more dense than dry air. what if they have the same density ? As I recall, you do not know what *"density"* is. > According to your dimwitted theory aircraft > should have increased lift in clouds. that is your statement > We might even expect pilots to > be looking for clouds to go skipping across the atmosphere. But the > don't. You want to know why? Because lift is reduced in clouds, if clouds were more dense, they would go to a lower level where it is denser. but you dont know, what density is, because you are exceptionally dense, or pretend to be, troll. <snip insulting people on the internet, the only "good" thing he has in life>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7c1ib$8ip$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545704 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, >indisputuably more dense than dry air. Actually, no. Clouds form when warm, humid air, which is less dense, rises. As it rises, it cools to the dewpoint and the water starts condensing out, forming the cloud. Note that this point, the humidity is 100% (else microdroplets wouldn't form/would immediately evaporate) so the air itself is at the lowest density it can be for that temperature/ pressure. The microdroplets, while tiny, are too large to act as a gas. Also, there is only about 1 gram of water per cubic meter of cumulus clouds. <snip crap based on incorrect assumptions>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 16:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <69427d14-5f70-4f40-aad3-1c18696725c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545726 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: > > >Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, > >indisputuably more dense than dry air. > > Actually, no. Actually, yes. You imbecile. That is why you can see them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 06:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7cmti$s4h$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #545753 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, >> >indisputuably more dense than dry air. >> >> Actually, no. >Actually, yes. You imbecile. That is why you can see them. I'll accept your lashing out without addressing the facts I gave as an admission of defeat by you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 23:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7f97i$1nnj$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545753 |
On 1/15/2016 6:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, >>> indisputuably more dense than dry air. >> >> Actually, no. > > Actually, yes. You imbecile. That is why you can see them. > troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h0k8$11qe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545753 |
On 1/15/2016 6:57 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:06:47 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Clouds, that have visible droplets and are, therefore, >>> indisputuably more dense than dry air. >> >> Actually, no. > > Actually, yes. You imbecile. That is why you can see them. > Uh, no. The reason you can see them is the scattering of light from the water drops. If helium had surface tension and held together in little bubbles, it would scatter too. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de952648-b8f3-452a-9963-28913662a984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545002 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Boundaries are the seams in our atmosphere where energy accumulates allowing vortices to form. Vortices can only form if one body of air is moist and the other is dry. (Specifically, the boundary conditions invoke a form of H2O that, effectively, activates its surface tension. [Intricate knowledge of H2O hydrogen bonding dynamics is necessary to comprehend this]). Vortices are a constant along the boundary layer between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. These are the jet streams. Vortices (jet streams and their many, usually invisible, tributaries) are the conduits of energy transfer in our atmosphere. They are self-sustaining energetically in that the vortex invokes an aerodynamic effect of air entering a tube and accelerating along its length, powered by air pressure, as it experiences isolation from the friction of atmosphere, producing a ramjet effect. > > This is how our atmosphere actually functions. Convection plays no role whatsoever. Storms happen when the tributaries of the jet streams run out of moisture along the top of the troposphere and begin to grow down into the lower atmosphere. But they require smooth boundary layers (again, between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) to grow down. If they find an extremely high quality boundary layer they might grow all the way to the ground causing a tornado. Whatever the case, the net effect of a storm is to pull moist air higher to re-hydrate the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If, however, they find no boundary layer or if the boundary layer has had its smoothness destroyed they cannot grow down. And no storm will happen. > > Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under lighter bodies of dry air. (This phenomenon has been labelled [misnamed] by meteorlogists as "inversion" layers.) If the smoothness of these bodies of air is maintained as it is pulled up into the flow of the jet streams there is a good chance that it will be used as a pathway to achieve vortex growth downward to initiate a storm. On the other hand, if the smoothness is destroyed by wind farms, for example, there is little or no chance that it will serve as a pathway for vortex growth and a storm will not happen. This is why when wind farms are constructed drought soon follows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5a57b06a-271c-4ed6-afa4-77fd5fdc4ce1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548624 |
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:36:59 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > Boundaries are the seams in our atmosphere where energy accumulates allowing vortices to form. Vortices can only form if one body of air is moist and the other is dry. (Specifically, the boundary conditions invoke a form of H2O that, effectively, activates its surface tension. [Intricate knowledge of H2O hydrogen bonding dynamics is necessary to comprehend this]). Vortices are a constant along the boundary layer between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. These are the jet streams. Vortices (jet streams and their many, usually invisible, tributaries) are the conduits of energy transfer in our atmosphere. They are self-sustaining energetically in that the vortex invokes an aerodynamic effect of air entering a tube and accelerating along its length, powered by air pressure, as it experiences isolation from the friction of atmosphere, producing a ramjet effect. > > > > This is how our atmosphere actually functions. Convection plays no role whatsoever. Storms happen when the tributaries of the jet streams run out of moisture along the top of the troposphere and begin to grow down into the lower atmosphere. But they require smooth boundary layers (again, between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) to grow down. If they find an extremely high quality boundary layer they might grow all the way to the ground causing a tornado. Whatever the case, the net effect of a storm is to pull moist air higher to re-hydrate the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If, however, they find no boundary layer or if the boundary layer has had its smoothness destroyed they cannot grow down. And no storm will happen. > > > > > Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under lighter bodies of dry air. (This phenomenon has been labelled [misnamed] by meteorlogists as "inversion" layers.) If the smoothness of these bodies of air is maintained as it is pulled up into the flow of the jet streams there is a good chance that it will be used as a pathway to achieve vortex growth downward to initiate a storm. On the other hand, if the smoothness is destroyed by wind farms, for example, there is little or no chance that it will serve as a pathway for vortex growth and a storm will not happen. This is why when wind farms are constructed drought soon follows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 22:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6995256f-475d-4b8f-baf6-04fb6c16de14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545002 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:58:20 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Boundaries are the seams in our atmosphere where energy accumulates allowing vortices to form. Vortices can only form if one body of air is moist and the other is dry. (Specifically, the boundary conditions invoke a form of H2O that, effectively, activates its surface tension. [Intricate knowledge of H2O hydrogen bonding dynamics is necessary to comprehend this]). Vortices are a constant along the boundary layer between the moist troposphere and the dry stratosphere. These are the jet streams. Vortices (jet streams and their many, usually invisible, tributaries) are the conduits of energy transfer in our atmosphere. They are self-sustaining energetically in that the vortex invokes an aerodynamic effect of air entering a tube and accelerating along its length, powered by air pressure, as it experiences isolation from the friction of atmosphere, producing a ramjet effect. > > This is how our atmosphere actually functions. Convection plays no role whatsoever. Storms happen when the tributaries of the jet streams run out of moisture along the top of the troposphere and begin to grow down into the lower atmosphere. But they require smooth boundary layers (again, between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air) to grow down. If they find an extremely high quality boundary layer they might grow all the way to the ground causing a tornado. Whatever the case, the net effect of a storm is to pull moist air higher to re-hydrate the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If, however, they find no boundary layer or if the boundary layer has had its smoothness destroyed they cannot grow down. And no storm will happen. > > Smooth boundary layers between moist bodies of air and dry bodies of air cannot be created by man. They form naturally during periods of warmth and atmospheric calmness as heavier bodies of moist air pool-up under lighter bodies of dry air. (This phenomenon has been labelled [misnamed] by meteorlogists as "inversion" layers.) If the smoothness of these bodies of air is maintained as it is pulled up into the flow of the jet streams there is a good chance that it will be used as a pathway to achieve vortex growth downward to initiate a storm. On the other hand, if the smoothness is destroyed by wind farms, for example, there is little or no chance that it will serve as a pathway for vortex growth and a storm will not happen. This is why when wind farms are constructed drought soon follows.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web