##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Water evaporation is currently perceived as a predominantly mechanical phenomenon. This perception is due to the predominance of views based on classical thermodynamics, using the concept of an ideal gas, and, consequently, on molecular kinetic theory. Therefore, the fact that water vapor is always positively charged is perceived as a curiosity. Since this approach is unsatisfactory, it is proposed here to perceive the evaporation of water as a phenomenon caused by the electromagnetic forces of the Earth. In this regard, it is proposed here to take into account the existence of an upward Lorentz force arising as a result of the daily movement of the earth’s surface relative to the geomagnetic field lines. The productivity of this perception of water evaporation is shown here.

Introduction

It seems that the evaporation of water is now perceived from a purely mechanical point of view. In any case, it is this point of view that is supported by both classical thermodynamics and molecular kinetic theory, based primarily on the ideal gas model [1], [2]. Therefore, it is not surprising that data indicating an exclusively positive charge of water vapor is completely ignored [3]. At the same time, the identical distribution of charges in the Earth’s atmosphere and in clouds, where charge transfer is associated with vapor transfer, remains unnoticed (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Both the earth’s atmosphere and clouds are polarized in such a way that their upper parts are positively charged and their lower parts are negatively charged, according to [4].

Since this state of affairs is unacceptable, it is proposed here to consider the evaporation of water as a phenomenon caused by the electromagnetic forces of the Earth.

Theoretical Framework

Thus, there is no doubt that the Earth’s atmosphere, during the daily rotation of the Earth, constantly crosses the horizontal lines of the geomagnetic field (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is not surprising that in earth’s atmosphere ever acts the up directed Lorentz force F:

Fig. 2. Since the Earth’s atmosphere constantly crosses the geomagnetic field lines, the Lorentz force acts in it, directing positive charges upward and negative charges downward [5].

where: q–electric charge located in the earth’s atmosphere;

F ↑= q / c [ v ; B ] ,

c’–the speed of light in air;

v–the speed of movement of the earth’s atmosphere, the magnitude and direction of which are here taken to be close to the speed of movement of the earth’s surface;

B–geomagnetic field induction [5].

Calculations have shown that the influence of this Lorentz force F↑ on atmospheric charges is very noticeable. Thus, it was shown that at the equator, under the influence of this force, the acceleration of an individual proton in the upward direction is ~1.5 • 107 m • s–2, and the acceleration of an individual electron in the downward direction is ~8,8 • 105 m • s–2 [5]. Naturally, both of these results mean that the elementary charges of the Earth can quickly move away from charges of the opposite sign, moving up or down.So, it is natural to expect the presence of manifestations of such charge separation in nature. Perhaps the upward flows of celestial protons, namely blue jets (Fig. 3, left), elves and sprites, and the downward flows of celestial electrons, namely ordinary lightning (Fig. 3, right), justify these expectations.

Fig. 3. Left: these are blue jets, which are mainly ascending flows of protons. Right: these are ordinary lightning bolts, which are believed to represent downward flows of electrons [5].

At the same time, additional calculations showed that the same Lorentz force F↑ allows a single proton to lift a drop containing at least 84830.34 water molecules, at least at the equator [5]. Therefore, it is likely that it is this Lorentz force F↑ that causes the rise of positively charged water in the clouds (Fig. 1) and the rise of steam above a cup of coffee (Fig. 4). Given all this, it is no less likely that the Lorentz force in question is an important component of the force that lifts the balloon (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4. This is steam rising over a cup of coffee; rising steam should likely be thought of as a type of electric current associated with mass transfer.

Fig. 5. This is what the Montgolfier brothers’ balloon looked like during takeoff, according to [5], [8].

Figs. 4 and 5 deserve a separate comment since both demonstrate the condensation of water vapor, i.e., aggregation of positively charged water. In view of this, it is worth taking into account that it is positively charged water that has a surface tension high enough to form aggregates so large that they can be seen even with the naked eye (Fig. 6). To be sure of the high surface tension of positively charged water, it is worth considering that it is this that ensures the formation of compact crystals (Fig. 7, left). Considering all this, it is not surprising that the Montgolfier brothers filled their balloons not with heated air, but with water vapor (Fig. 5), which can condense on the inner surface of the balloon, like on the inner surface of a bottle (Fig. 8), and thus transfer its positive charge to the balloon.

Fig. 6. Left: 5 ml of water with an electric potential of −200 mV spread over the entire bottom of a Petri dish due to the low surface tension of such water. Right: 5 ml of water with an electric potential of +200 mV does not completely cover the bottom of the Petri dish since such water is compressed under the influence of its high surface tension [9].

Fig. 7. It is the crystals that formed after the drying of solutions of KH2PO4 prepared on the water with potentials of +250 mV (left) and –250 mV (right) [9].

Fig. 8. Water condensate droplets are formed from water vapor, which has a positive charge. Surface tension forces determine both the shape of such drops (compare with Fig. 6, right) and their ability to stay on a vertical surface.

It is quite obvious that rising steam is not formed by individual water molecules, as the molecular kinetic theory states, but by multimolecular aggregates of water, the density of which exceeds the density of the surrounding air. This, in particular, means that the Archimedes force is not capable of independently lifting both free steam and steam in the balloon (see Fig. 5) [5]; perhaps it is most correct to identify these flows with electric currents associated with mass transfer, the existence of which was substantiated by Onsager [6], [7].

Thus, there are enough phenomena that can be considered as confirmation of both the positive charge of water vapor and the existence of the Lorentz force F↑, resulting from the movement of the earth’s surface relative to the geomagnetic field lines (Fig. 2). Given this, further ignoring these confirmations seems counterproductive, at least. At the same time, the knowledge gained about the root cause of water evaporation can be very productive. So, it is also likely that this knowledge could be useful in explaining the processes that occur in tornadoes. To verify this, it is worth taking into account the existence of another Lorentz force F→, which, in particular, acts on horizontal air flows crossing the vertical lines of the geomagnetic field (Fig. 2) [10]. Thus, it is this Lorentz force F→ that divides any horizontal air flow into two oppositely charged air flows (in Fig. 9, these flows are marked with red and blue straight arrows).At the same time, the Lorentz force F↑ directs the positively charged airflow upward and the negatively charged airflow downward, just like in the clouds (Fig. 1). Simultaneously, the Lorentz force F→ rotates the positively charged flow counterclockwise (Fig. 9, top left), and the negative flow rotates clockwise (Fig. 9, top right) (in Fig. 9, both of these rotations are marked with red and dark blue curved arrows). So, it seems that it is the knowledge obtained that makes it possible to explain both the spiral trajectory of the upward flow of the central part of the tornado and the charge distribution in it [10]; perhaps it is appropriate to recall here that it is spiral trajectories that are characteristic of charged particles moving along magnetic field lines [11].

Fig. 9. When interacting with the downward component of the geomagnetic field, any horizontal air flow (pale blue) is divided into positively (red) and negatively (blue) charged flows [10].

Thus, the participation of both Lorentz forces, namely F↑ and F→ in the formation of a tornado seems quite obvious. Despite this, the visualization of this very participation seems to be quite appropriate. In particular, this very visualization can be realized with two Petri dishes filled with water and placed to the left and right of a narrow and horizontal airflow created by a small cooler (Fig. 10). So, it can be observed that the water in the right Petri dish rotates rapidly clockwise (Fig. 10, right), while the water in the left Petri dish remains motionless (Fig. 10, left). Apparently, the scheme proposed above (Fig. 9) makes it possible to explain this difference (Fig. 10) quite satisfactorily. So, in accordance with this scheme, the horizontal air flow from the cooler (it is marked in Fig. 11 bluish arrow) first intersects the downward vertical geomagnetic field lines in the northern hemisphere where the experiment was conducted (in Fig. 9 these lines of force are marked with a circle with a cross). This intersection generates the Lorentz force F→, which divides the horizontal air flow into two oppositely charged flows (in Fig. 9, these flows are marked with red and blue arrows). Then the Lorentz force F↑ directs the positively charged flow upward and the negatively charged flow downward, as in the clouds (Fig. 1); in this case, the Lorentz force F→ rotates the positively charged flow counterclockwise, and the negatively charged flow clockwise, as in the proposed scheme (Fig. 9).

Fig. 10. The air flow from the cooler (shown by the pale blue arrow) does not touch the surface of the water located to the left of it (left), but rotates the water located to the right of it (right) [11].

Fig. 11. The results presented in Figs. 9 and 10 allow us to state that it is the winds prevailing in the USA and Canada that form the tornado alley [12].

Thus, it is the use of the acquired knowledge that makes it possible to explain not only the counterclockwise rotation of tornadoes in the northern hemisphere of the Earth, but also the clockwise rotation of the contents of the right Petri dish there (Fig. 10, right); it is worth considering that the proposed explanation for both makes it possible to explain the coincidence of the tornado alley in the USA with the wind flows dominating their territory (Fig. 11).

It is worth noting here that the air of all the winds presented in Fig. 11 are positively charged. It is this electrization that occurs due to the friction of moving air against the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, in accordance with Kyon’s rule [5], [13], [14]. Considering all of the above (Figs. 9, 10), it is likely that it is this positive electrization that is especially conducive to the formation of tornadoes from all these winds (Fig. 11).

Perhaps it is appropriate to add here that both the formation of tornadoes and the phenomena occurring in them are so far analyzed predominantly mechanistically and, therefore, without the participation of electromagnetic forces [15]–[23]. This approach is surprising since tornadoes are often accompanied by lightning, that is, definitely electrical phenomena. Either way, thinking about tornadoes as phenomena caused by the same geomagnetic forces that cause water to evaporate seems more productive than the traditional one.

Conclusion

Considering all of the above, it seems quite reasonable to consider in the future the evaporation of water not only from the traditional point of view, i.e., purely mechanistically [1], [2], but also as an electromagnetic phenomenon provided by the electromagnetic forces of the Earth. It seems that this particular interpretation of water evaporation opens new perspectives, especially in thermodynamics, which closely links water evaporation with heat transfer [2], [24]. Thus, the fact that the evaporation of water is accompanied by a charge distribution, as in clouds (Fig. 1), suggests that a similar charge distribution always occurs during convection, which is currently perceived as heat exchange associated solely with mass transfer and therefore governed primarily by gravity [24]–[26]. At the same time, the perception of convection as a phenomenon associated with charge transfer allows expecting that heat flows can be directed using electric fields, which seems very promising.

At the same time, this perception of convection gives grounds to consider the change in the heat capacity of evaporating water due to its negative electrization. Apparently, this is supported by the results obtained by Israeli scientists, who found that the freezing point of positively charged water is much higher than the freezing point of negatively charged water. This, in particular, explains why ice forms on the upper surface of the water, assuming, of course, that the water is polarized in the same way as the clouds (Fig. 1). In any case, all these considerations correlate well with data showing that ice formed on the surface of pure liquid water has a positive charge relative to that water [27].

Be that as it may, it seems that the proposal to perceive the evaporation of water as an electromagnetic phenomenon is not without foundation.

References

  1. Reif F. Statistical physics. In BPC, vol. 5, NY: McGraw-Hill Company, 1965.
     Google Scholar
  2. Fenn JB. Engines, Energy and Entropy (Athermodynamics Primer). New York, San Francisco: W. Freeman & Co; 1982.
     Google Scholar
  3. Krasnogorskaja NV. Electromagnetic Fields in the Earth’s Atmosphere and Their Biological Significance. vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka; 1984. In Russian.
     Google Scholar
  4. Feynman R, Leighton R, Sands M. Atmospheric phenomena. In FLP, vol. 3, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1971.
     Google Scholar
  5. Pivovarenko Y. The contribution of geomagnetic forces to the lifting force of various aircrafts: fromballoons and airplanes to flying discs. Am J Electromagn Appl. 2022;10(1):1–8. doi: 10.11648/j.ajea.20221001.11.
     Google Scholar
  6. Onsager L. Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. Phys Rev. 1931;37:405–26. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.37.405.
     Google Scholar
  7. Hartmann MA, Weinkamer R, Fratzl P, Svoboda J, Fischer FD. Onsager’s coefficients and diffusion laws—a Monte Carlo study. Philos Mag. 2005;85(12):1243–60. doi: 10.1080/14786430412331333356.
     Google Scholar
  8. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier. Encyclopedia Britannica; 27 Mar. 2024. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Montgolfier-brothers. Accessed 10 June 2024.
     Google Scholar
  9. Pivovarenko Y. ±Water: demonstration of water properties, depending on its electrical potential. World J Appl Phys. 2018;3(1):13–8. doi: 10.11648/j.wjap.20180301.12.
     Google Scholar
  10. Pivovarenko Y. Earth’s electromagnetic forces and their participation in the creation of tornadoes. Am J Electromagn Appl. 2019;7(1):8–12. doi: 10.11648/j.ajea.20190701.12.
     Google Scholar
  11. Kittel C, Knight WD, Ruderman MA. Mechanics. In BPC, 2nd ed. vol. 1, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1973.
     Google Scholar
  12. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. Tornado Alley. Encyclopedia Britannica; 10 Jun. 2024. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Tornado-Alley. Accessed 10 June 2024.
     Google Scholar
  13. Nekrasov BV. General Chemistry. vol. 1. Moscow: Chemistry; 1974. In Russian.
     Google Scholar
  14. Pivovarenko Y. The Gulf stream and the Californian current as factors affecting the behavior and health of Americans. J Hum Physiol. 2021;3(2):51–6. doi: 10.30564/jhp.v3i2.4177.
     Google Scholar
  15. Abdul JA. The “musical” sound emitted by a tornado. Mon Weather Rev. 1966;94(4):213–20. doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1966)094.
     Google Scholar
  16. Davies-Jones RP. A new look at the vorticity equation with application to tornadogenesis. Preprints. 12th Conference on Severe Local Storms, pp. 249–52, San Antonio, TX: Amer. Meteor. Soc; 1982.
     Google Scholar
  17. Davies-Jones RP. Observational and theoretical aspects of tornadogenesis. In Intense Atmospheric Vortices. Springer-Verlag, 1982.
     Google Scholar
  18. Church CR, Snow JT. Measurements of axial pressures in tornado-like vortices. J Atmos Sci. 1984;42(6):576–82. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1985)042<0576:MOAPIT>2.0.CO;2.
     Google Scholar
  19. Pauley RL. Laboratory Measurements of axial pressures in two-celled tornado-like vortices. J Atmos Sci. 1989;46(21):3392–9. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046<3392:LMOAPI>2.0.CO;2.
     Google Scholar
  20. Winn WP, Hunyady SJ, Aulich GD. Pressure at the ground in a large tornado. J Geophys Res. 1999;104(18):22067–82. doi: 10.1029/1999JD900387.
     Google Scholar
  21. Edwards R, Ladue JG, Ferree JT, Coulbourne WL. Tornado intensity estimation: past, present, and future. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2013;94(5):641–53. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00006.1.
     Google Scholar
  22. Van Den Brooke MS. Polarimetric radar metrics related to tornado life cycles and intensity in supercell storms. Mon Weather Rev. 2017;145(9):3671–86. doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-16-0453.1.
     Google Scholar
  23. Elbing BR, Petrin CE, Van Den Brooke MS. Measurement and characterization of infrasound from a tornado producing storm. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;146:1528–37. doi: 10.1121/1.5124486.
     Google Scholar
  24. Kuchling H. Physik. Leipzig: VEB Fachbuchverlag; 1980. In German.
     Google Scholar
  25. Kothandaraman CP. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 3rd ed. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers; 2006.
     Google Scholar
  26. Sabri A, Asbik M. Heat and mass transfer by natural convection during transpiration trough a porous plate. Energy Power Eng. 2022;14(12):719–36. doi: 10.4236/epe.2022.1412039.
     Google Scholar
  27. Takahashi T. Electric potential of liquid water on an ice surface. J Atmos Sci. 1969;26(6):1253–8. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<1253:EPOLWO>2.0.CO;2.
     Google Scholar