![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Osmosis
Well, here's the problem. In order to fire rockets into a cloudy sky, you need to get a "certificate of authorization" from FAA, which is a special exception to a law precluding anybody firing rockets into FAA airspace (i.e., above 500 feet), especially if it is cloudy. The reason is simple: that's where the airplanes are. They're especially nervous about people firing rockets into clouds, because if there was an airplane in the cloud, you wouldn't see it before you shot it down. So they're very serious about this, and anybody who attempts this without authorization is going straight to jail. Now here's the catch: they won't even consider an application for a special exception unless the applicant is publicly funded. Their reasoning is that if some other public institution (federal, state, or local) has already signed off on the project, then at least somebody thinks it's worthwhile, and therefore FAA will go ahead and consider it. But no public funding, no application for a special exception. And there's the problem -- I can't get any public institution to vouch for me. The official NWS position is that EM plays no role in tornadoes. Offline, one noted authority on the topic (who I cannot name because it was personal correspondence) said that there may well be an EM component in tornadoes, but it would cost more than it would be worth to pursue it. I told him that I'd pay for it myself. The rockets are $700 apiece, and I'd be willing to drop a few thousand to see what they would do. And there would be no worry about hitting any airplanes, because it would do me no good to fire rockets unless there was a tornado in progress, and no airplane can withstand the conditions inside a tornadic supercell (at least not in the bottom 1 mile, which is the vertical range of the rockets). But he said that if I submitted my paper to any reputable journal and he was asked to referee it, he would reject it, and he was notable enough to be just such a person. Similarly, every other door that I knocked on got slammed in my face. So no, there isn't going to be any public funding, so there isn't going to be any certificate of authorization. So the rocket test will have to wait.Osmosis wrote:Ok Charles-who has the sounding rockets and rolls of wire?
CharlesChandler wrote:
http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... rspout.jpg
So I want to get photographic and anemometer evidence that we got into the inflow channel, and I want to get space charge data, to make/break my contention that the air has a strong positive electric charge. I already know that it is, for a variety of reasons. For example, in fluid dynamics, skin friction increases with the square of the velocity. As a consequence, the inflow to a vortex should be axisymmetric, since anything that tries to flow faster will encounter exponentially more friction. Yet we can clearly see in that photograph that there is a huge disparity in flow rates. In fact, they successfully deployed some flares, and you can clearly see that outside of the inflow channel, the air is actually blowing away from the vortex. In fluid dynamics, this kind of selective response to a suction vortex is evidence of the presence of two different fluids, one with a much lower viscosity, which tunnels through the other to get into the vortex. "Two-fluid" simulations are easy to set up in CFD applications, and this phenomenon is easy to demonstrate in the lab. The problem for the standard model of the atmosphere is that there shouldn't be two fluids up there -- the air should be well-mixed. Differences in temperature and humidity in the relevant ranges can account for no more that a 6% difference in kinematic viscosity, while the inflow channel to a tornado regularly travels 800% faster than the ambient air (if it's even flowing toward the tornado at all). Aside from temperature and humidity, the only other property that air can possibly have, and which could very definitely affect viscosity, is electric charge. Plasmas are well known to behave as ideal gases (i.e., frictionless). So that's definitely charged air. But direct measurements with the proper instrumentation will be a lot more convincing. So that's what I'd like to do.
axisymmetric
That isn't an example of what I was talking about. That vortex IS axisymmetric, in that the axis goes up through the centerline of the vortex, and the vortex is the same in all directions from each point on that axis, on a plane that is perpendicular to the axis. That vortex just happens to be an example of a tornado that has a dust sheath AND a condensation funnel. So as you go up the axis, what you get when you radiate out perpendicular to the axis changes, depending on elevation. But technically, that's still axisymmetric.fosborn_ wrote:Would this be a good example?axisymmetric
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests