Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/www/users/softwt3y/Other/CharlesChandler/BulletinBoard/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3824: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3826: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3827: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3828: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
charles-chandler.org • View topic - Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes

charles-chandler.org

Challenge what you hear.
It is currently 2020-02-26 02:49:02

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2009-08-29 18:24:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
This topic is for discussion on the paper entitled, "Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes" on charles-chandler.org.

This is a complete "idea" about the nature of tornadic storms. It's really just an idea, because it does not get into the nitty-gritty of demonstrating the proofs for the contentions being made. But it's a complete idea in the sense that a wide range of data was taken into account, and the forces in consideration, if powerful enough, would generate precisely the sorts of properties possessed by tornadic storms.

Other bulletin board discussions of this topic include:

2008-10-23 ~ 2008-11-21:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1137

2008-11-02 ~ 2008-11-27:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/80786-Plasma-Physics-and-Tornadoes

2009-07-15 ~ 2009-11-08:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2083

2009-12-05 ~2009-12-10:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161312

Please note that the theory has matured since the discussions on those boards first began, mainly of course because of the discussion on those boards. So many of the comments are no longer relevant. And not all of the discussions were well-focused. But this nevertheless provides a glimpse at what other people are saying about this work (usually not so complimentary, but whatever!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2009-11-02 23:01:18 
Offline

Joined: 2009-11-02 22:50:51
Posts: 1
I read the whole paper. Very interesting. You've obviously put a great deal of work into this, and my compliments to you on that.

But if I could play the devil's advocate for a minute, I find it just a little bit difficult to believe that scientists haven't already gone over every single one of these possibilities. Like the bit about using magnetometers to detect tornadoes. Are we really to believe that this was "discovered" in the 1960s, but you're the first person to realize that this could be useful in tornado prediction?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2009-11-02 23:59:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Well, I'm not exactly the first person to think of the significance of using magnetometers to predict tornadoes. But yes, this WAS discovered in the 1960s, and yes, nobody ever followed up on it. To understand why, you have to remember that a lot has changed since then.

In the 1960s, so little was understood about tornadoes that it was not uncommon for researchers to go entire seasons in the field without seeing any. We have learned a lot about tornadoes since then, and now, an experienced storm chaser with a little bit of luck might see a tornado once a week. But back then, it wasn't like that. All of what we have learned about the conditions conducive to tornadogenesis in the last 40 years didn't exist then.

So consider the prospect back then, of going out into the field to prove that magnetic fields would be useful in predicting tornadoes. If you're lucky, you might see one or a couple tornadoes in a season. Otherwise, you might see a couple tornadoes in a couple of seasons. So how many would you have to see in order to develop a causal relationship between magnetic fields and tornadogenesis? Many! So how much research money would it take to keep a team of scientists in the field that many years, to get that many trials, to prove that it was worth something? Millions of dollars!

So consider the prospect of asking for millions of dollars so you can chase storms for several or many years, so you can determine if there's a causal relationship. Now consider that prospect, assuming that you don't have a theory that can explain why you think that the original discovery wasn't just a fluke. You would have been laughed out of the room. So there may have been a hallway conversion or two about this, but no follow-up proposal was ever approved.

But look at the prospect NOW. High-precision magnetometers only cost a couple hundred dollars now. And with what we know about tornadoes, and with so many people out in the field chasing these storms, if we can just get within 50 miles of the storm, we can get the magnetic field data, and chances are, there will be a storm chaser there to confirm the presence (or absence) of a tornado. So we're not talking about millions of dollars now. We're talking about something amateurs could do, for the fun of it! And we could get enough data in one season to establish the causal relationship (if it exists). So it's a whole new ballgame at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-02 21:47:15 
Offline

Joined: 2010-09-02 19:11:15
Posts: 3
Firstly I would like to commend you on this work. I think that considering that most other geophysical studies include EM theory as a basis for its findings, it's preposterous to think that meteorology completely excludes EM theory as a formidable contribution to the mechanics at work in storms outside of electrostatic phenomena.

I do however have some things to pick at though, that may only require elaboration on your part. In Chapter 9. Effect of EM on Supercells:

Quote:
If the air motion is fast enough, the magnetic fields generated by each segment will overlap, and therefore will merge into unified fields. If they do, the magnetic fields will transform the piece-wise motion into a continuous toroidal loop.


There appears to be no justification as to how the magnetic field was able to stabilize the motion. Is this due to magnetic force? If so, I fail to see how. At best this requires further explanation in order to consider this as such. My best guess to how this could fit into this theory would be that the charged air moving in a pseudo-toroidal motion acted as a toroid solenoid creating a unified magnetic field loop inside the toroid. This technically can follow Faraday's induction laws to prevent sudden fluctuations in the virtual electric current that is the mid cloud circulation.

I had an other funny feeling when I got to Chapter 21. Inflow Channels:
Quote:
The only way of explaining all of these phenomena is to explore the electrodynamic expectations. Moving electric charges generate magnetic fields. Positive charges will accelerate magnetically-responsive particles in a clockwise direction, facing in the direction of the flow of charges. (See Figure 18.) Hence if the air in the inflow channel is positively-charged, we would expect it to accelerate magnetically-responsive particles in the water to the left, facing in the direction of the flow, since that is the direction of the clockwise lines of force at the bottom. But since the water has more mass than the air, the force will act on the air instead. So instead of the water being accelerated to the left, the air will twist as it moves. The spray that is being kicked up to the right facing in the direction of the flow is then the result of the friction between the stationary water and the barrel-rolling inflow channel.


It is here that I caught a glimpse of your understanding of magnetic fields. There are many logical holes in this paragraph and it appears to be reflected on the figure.

Image

1. Yes moving charges do create magnetic fields in the form of circular loops around a charge stream according to Biot Savart Law. The direction of the magnetic field is clockwise in the direction of the current flow. Since current is defined as the flow of electrons or negative charges, and the charge stream described in your paper is positively charged and is by standard a "positron" flow, the equivalent current is traveling out from the vortex. Not in. This would generate a magnetic field that is traveling counter clockwise in the direction of air flow.

2. You mentioned in the paragraph that a magnetic force acting on particles in the water. What particles? Water has a relatively low permeability and therefore little effect in a magnetic field. Unless you are considering the water as a charged particle and not so much of a "magnetically responsive particle".

3. You theorize that since water has more mass than air, the acceleration will act on the air instead. Due to what? Magnetic force is not an attractive force between the air and water molecules. Magnetic force effects a moving charged particle in a magnetic field. Magnetic attraction is a different concept and absolutely negligible here. Yes every force has an equal and opposite reaction but you would have to get into quantum mechanics to explain that. In the domain of influence for your work, there is no opposite reaction to magnetic force. For all intensive purposes, it just happens.

4. It seems that you are of the understanding that magnetic force occurs in a clockwise direction around a flow of charges. This is just not so. Though the terminology of magnetic force lines are synonymous with magnetic field lines indeed. The harsh reality is that the geometry of the magnetic field is only one third of the variables needed to describe the magnetic force. It appears that you are treating the magnetic field lines just as electric field lines with regards to force. In electric force the force is parallel or anti-parallel to the lines. In magnetic force, the force is orthogonal to the plane made by both the electric field and charge velocity unit vectors. Either way the force is always perpendicular to the magnetic field (of which is also perpendicular to the flow of charges). Assume your theory assumes the inflow is along the X axis, the magnetic force on a particle directly underneath the inflow could only be in any direction locked on a plane comprising the z (vertical) axis and the azimuth of the moving water born particle. Since it is doubtful all water particles are moving the same direction, the magnetic force cannot not be in a unified direction. Consequently the motion of the particles could never all be accelerating to the left or anywhere

Although I think there is a lot wrong with your magnetic theories there is strong evidence that you are onto something with this.

I also see evidence of very broad and somewhat careless assumptions in Chapter 26. Cloud Striations:

Quote:
The rotation within the cloud-base striations can then be explained as a result of the magnetic field surrounding the updraft. The Lorentz force is not powerful enough to generate tornadic wind speeds at the surface,40 but is sufficient to motivate the slow rotation in the cloud-base striations.


Lorentz Gyrations are plausible. But, you must somehow theorize how the storm is able to create a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to a plane parallel to the surface of the earth at the height of such striations. At the very least it must be uniform along that specific radius from the updraft centroid.

If you expect for this to be a complete theory it must have more then a weak generalization concerning magnetism. It does not need to be super specific but it needs to have inductive reasoning that confirms more can be discovered upon closer inspection. If the contentions you make are based on misconceptions on basic EM theory, people will close the book on you. It would be a shame because the rest of your paper seems to introduce concepts that make sense and could very well be confirmed. Take some time to explore this. Your work has real value and I look forward to seeing further discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-05 06:55:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
This is the most detailed critical review so far -- my sincerest thanks to you. Every legitimate criticism saves me years of work.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
In Chapter 9. Effect of EM on Supercells:
Quote:
If the air motion is fast enough... the magnetic fields will transform the piece-wise motion into a continuous toroidal loop.

There appears to be no justification as to how the magnetic field was able to stabilize the motion.

Actually, I think this needs a diagram, but here's some text that's a bit more explicit:

"If the air motion is fast enough, and if enough charged particles are present, these four distinct airflow segments will generate magnetic fields, and such fields will begin to influence the movement of the charged particles, by the magnetic pinch effect. And since the fields are far larger than the airflows themselves, the fields will overlap. In the overlapping areas, the net magnetic field won't have sharp corners — they'll be rounded. For example, where the entrainment meets the updraft, there would be more or less of a 90° turn. But at the corner, there will be two overlapping magnetic fields — one from the entrainment and one from the updraft. The net field will begin to turn upward when it comes into the influence of the updraft's field, and the rounded turn will be complete when the updraft's field is out of the influence of the entrainment's field. In this way, the net field from four perpendicular airflows becomes continuous and rounded. And this means that the magnetic pinch effect will encourage the charged particles to fall into a continuous toroidal loop."

Kceovaisnt wrote:
Chapter 21. Inflow Channels.

1. Yes moving charges do create magnetic fields in the form of circular loops around a charge stream according to Biot Savart Law. The direction of the magnetic field is clockwise in the direction of the current flow. Since current is defined as the flow of electrons or negative charges, and the charge stream described in your paper is positively charged and is by standard a "positron" flow, the equivalent current is traveling out from the vortex. Not in. This would generate a magnetic field that is traveling counter clockwise in the direction of air flow.

Hang on a second -- I thought that the standard notation for Ampere's Law was that moving positive charges generate magnetic fields that accelerate magnetically-responsive particles by the right-hand rule. Is that not correct? Usually positive charges don't flow, but my understanding is that the notational convention was established before the elementary particles responsible for electric charges were discovered.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
2. You mentioned in the paragraph that a magnetic force acting on particles in the water. What particles? Water has a relatively low permeability and therefore little effect in a magnetic field. Unless you are considering the water as a charged particle and not so much of a "magnetically responsive particle".

Actually, I am assuming that the water is magnetically-responsive. Not the water molecules, actually, but rather, the iron content (at 0.0034 ppm in seawater). But if I have the direction of the field wrong, I have to re-think the whole thing anyway.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
3. You theorize that since water has more mass than air, the acceleration will act on the air instead. Due to what? Magnetic force is not an attractive force between the air and water molecules. Magnetic force effects a moving charged particle in a magnetic field. Magnetic attraction is a different concept and absolutely negligible here. Yes every force has an equal and opposite reaction but you would have to get into quantum mechanics to explain that. In the domain of influence for your work, there is no opposite reaction to magnetic force. For all intensive purposes, it just happens.

Here again we see the limitations of my knowledge. I was simply thinking that anytime there is a force of any kind between two objects, the force will "act" on whichever one has less mass. Aside from the fact that I might have the direction of the fields wrong, in which case all of this would be moot, then the question is: would the back-pressure actually make the moving gas barrel-roll? The more I think about it, the more naive it sounds. But let's make sure I at least have the forces going in the right direction. Then I'll rethink this section.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
4. It seems that you are of the understanding that magnetic force occurs in a clockwise direction around a flow of charges. This is just not so. Though the terminology of magnetic force lines are synonymous with magnetic field lines indeed. The harsh reality is that the geometry of the magnetic field is only one third of the variables needed to describe the magnetic force. It appears that you are treating the magnetic field lines just as electric field lines with regards to force. In electric force the force is parallel or anti-parallel to the lines. In magnetic force, the force is orthogonal to the plane made by both the electric field and charge velocity unit vectors. Either way the force is always perpendicular to the magnetic field (of which is also perpendicular to the flow of charges). Assume your theory assumes the inflow is along the X axis, the magnetic force on a particle directly underneath the inflow could only be in any direction locked on a plane comprising the z (vertical) axis and the azimuth of the moving water born particle. Since it is doubtful all water particles are moving the same direction, the magnetic force cannot not be in a unified direction. Consequently the motion of the particles could never all be accelerating to the left or anywhere.

I wasn't thinking that the water (or iron in it) is moving, so I wasn't thinking of an ExB drift that would do the accelerating. Rather, I was thinking of the iron molecules as little bar magnets. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am. I'll wait for your replies to my earlier comments, and start over from the beginning with this section.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
Although I think there is a lot wrong with your magnetic theories there is strong evidence that you are onto something with this.

OK, so I have more work to do -- what's new? :D

Kceovaisnt wrote:
I also see evidence of very broad and somewhat careless assumptions in Chapter 26. Cloud Striations:

Quote:
The rotation within the cloud-base striations can then be explained as a result of the magnetic field surrounding the updraft. The Lorentz force is not powerful enough to generate tornadic wind speeds at the surface, but is sufficient to motivate the slow rotation in the cloud-base striations.

Lorentz Gyrations are plausible. But, you must somehow theorize how the storm is able to create a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to a plane parallel to the surface of the earth at the height of such striations. At the very least it must be uniform along that specific radius from the updraft centroid.

The proposal is that this field is generated by the moving charges within the tornado. I'll look at the wording.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
If you expect for this to be a complete theory it must have more then a weak generalization concerning magnetism. It does not need to be super specific but it needs to have inductive reasoning that confirms more can be discovered upon closer inspection. If the contentions you make are based on misconceptions on basic EM theory, people will close the book on you. It would be a shame because the rest of your paper seems to introduce concepts that make sense and could very well be confirmed. Take some time to explore this. Your work has real value and I look forward to seeing further discussion.

Thank you so very much for your encouragement, and for the helpful nature of your criticisms. (If I had a dollar for every time I took an ad hominem attack, or had to wade through paragraphs of the fallacy of authority...)

I totally agree, that the first evidence of naivete on my part is the last sentence to ever be considered by that reader. This is why scientists don't do work like this. I'm biting off more than I can chew. There's no way to get through this much material, in this complex of a problem domain, without making a mistake, and it only takes one to discredit the entire work. This is not entirely unreasonable. With so much literature, why would you take the time to consider something written by someone obviously beyond the limits of his knowledge?

Despite the absurdity of the entire enterprise, there was a method to my madness. Seeing that 60 years and a billion dollars worth of scientific research still hadn't solved the problem, I decided to take a different tack. Instead of accuracy being the hard constraint, and comprehensiveness being a soft (or non-existent) constraint, I made comprehensiveness the hard constraint. Once a comprehensive framework was achieved, I then started ratcheting up the specificity. Every time an increase in accuracy revealed an error, the relevant aspects of the framework had to be disassembled and rebuilt to fix the problem. Early in the project, this usually revealed problems in other areas. I had the whole thing in pieces on the ground many times. But there was, in fact, a method. There may be many answers to one question, but entirely within one problem domain, there can only be one answer to many questions. If there are many data, especially of a very distinctive nature, comprehensiveness can make the better constraint. Using this method, I was able to narrow down the solution domain. In some cases (such as with the base of the tornado), there is only one possibility. In other cases (such as the mesocyclone), with respect to each datum there might have been many possibilities, but there was only one way to work through the whole thing with one construct. In other cases, multiple possibilities still exist, and I'm just going with a placeholder until more data are available, or I get the chance to do more literary research. And of course, in some cases I've taken a blind shot at something and I missed. But one by one, the errors are detected, and fixes are found. This is how the project got to this point. :D And this is where contributions from people like you are so valuable. I don't have the time to get formal education in all of the relevant disciplines. Nobody does, and perhaps that's why this problem hasn't been solved yet. But a collaborative effort involving constructive criticisms from people who do have knowledge in the various disciplines can accomplish what the individual cannot.

My sincerest thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-07 21:40:58 
Offline

Joined: 2010-09-02 19:11:15
Posts: 3
Quote:
1. Yes moving charges do create magnetic fields in the form of circular loops around a charge stream according to Biot Savart Law. The direction of the magnetic field is clockwise in the direction of the current flow. Since current is defined as the flow of electrons or negative charges, and the charge stream described in your paper is positively charged and is by standard a "positron" flow, the equivalent current is traveling out from the vortex. Not in. This would generate a magnetic field that is traveling counter clockwise in the direction of air flow.


My fault. I have miscorrected you. The electron flow is what ultimately causes current but the electron flow is noted as opposite the flow of current. I am working with semiconducters right now and am thinking backwards. In this discipline you don't consider current as the energetic property but flow of electrons. Your diagram is therefore correct graphically as far as I can see.

Quote:
Hang on a second -- I thought that the standard notation for Ampere's Law was that moving positive charges generate magnetic fields that accelerate magnetically-responsive particles by the right-hand rule. Is that not correct?


it is correct. That notion is birthed in a concept of magnetic monopoles which do not exist. But if they did, you would indeed see acceleration of the molecule and therefore the water. Instead the poles accelerate conceptually until the magnetic poles are facing the direction of force and can go no further. What really is happening is the B field is placing a torque on the atomic level of materials with a high permeability (suspended iron in your case) and align all atoms such that the electron orbitals are all rotating the same direction. On the material level they aren't doing anything and no accelerations are taking place along the B field lines (zero net force). But even if there was magnetic monopoles present you still would not see a reaction between the air above the water and the water itself outside of surface friction. The idea that the rolling air as a product of these forces is unlikely as they are not part of the force interaction system.

As for charged particles, the right hand rule is used to describe acceleration of particles due to magnetic fields and initial motion. But it is not the same instance of using the right hand rule to describe the direction of the magnetic field from a known direction of current. I was led to think you were referring to Lorentz force as this is what "magnetic force" nomenclature is used to describe. If I am wrong, and there is a way to accelerate objects of high permeability along the magnetic field lines, I would like to see some documentation on it as this is something I have yet to learn.

Quote:
"If the air motion is fast enough, and if enough charged particles are present, these four distinct airflow segments will generate magnetic fields, and such fields will begin to influence the movement of the charged particles, by the magnetic pinch effect. And since the fields are far larger than the airflows themselves, the fields will overlap. In the overlapping areas, the net magnetic field won't have sharp corners — they'll be rounded. For example, where the entrainment meets the updraft, there would be more or less of a 90° turn. But at the corner, there will be two overlapping magnetic fields — one from the entrainment and one from the updraft. The net field will begin to turn upward when it comes into the influence of the updraft's field, and the rounded turn will be complete when the updraft's field is out of the influence of the entrainment's field. In this way, the net field from four perpendicular airflows becomes continuous and rounded. And this means that the magnetic pinch effect will encourage the charged particles to fall into a continuous toroidal loop."


That would be worthy of placing in your paper. As far as I can see this passes reason.

Quote:
The rotation within the cloud-base striations can then be explained as a result of the magnetic field surrounding the updraft. The Lorentz force is not powerful enough to generate tornadic wind speeds at the surface, but is sufficient to motivate the slow rotation in the cloud-base striations.

Lorentz Gyrations are plausible. But, you must somehow theorize how the storm is able to create a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to a plane parallel to the surface of the earth at the height of such striations. At the very least it must be uniform along that specific radius from the updraft centroid.

The proposal is that this field is generated by the moving charges within the tornado. I'll look at the wording.


No. I do indeed understand the source of magnetic field. I do not doubt that there could be the presence of a magnetic field. I am skeptical that you could find a significant uniform magnetic field that points straight up with an area comparable to that of a cumulonimbus cloud base. If there are fluctuations, the gyro-radius will change. This conundrum does not discredit the notions you have made on this subject. I think there could be ways of explaining this but ultimately this principle is a possible outcome of much needed testing. I for one like the idea. It just need reinforcement.

At this point I think your paper (with adjustments) is strong enough to start moving to the next phase. You should at least start assembling a list of candidates for a focused research team and perhaps start talking to institutes for research grants. This way you are no longer restricted by the limits of your knowledge. I can think of several studies that were conducted at my university that were far less important and were well funded by grant money. This could have real applications in the electronic forecast industry.

Thank you for your efforts


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-09 06:48:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Kceovaisnt wrote:
That notion [that moving positive charges generate magnetic fields that accelerate magnetically-responsive particles by the right-hand rule] is birthed in a concept of magnetic monopoles which do not exist. But if they did, you would indeed see acceleration of the molecule and therefore the water. Instead the poles accelerate conceptually until the magnetic poles are facing the direction of force and can go no further. What really is happening is the B field is placing a torque on the atomic level of materials with a high permeability (suspended iron in your case) and align all atoms such that the electron orbitals are all rotating the same direction. On the material level they aren't doing anything and no accelerations are taking place along the B field lines (zero net force). But even if there was magnetic monopoles present you still would not see a reaction between the air above the water and the water itself outside of surface friction. The idea that the rolling air as a product of these forces is unlikely as they are not part of the force interaction system.


I understand that it's not a "magnetic attraction", such as one would see if a magnetically-responsive particle was in a magnetic field where the lines of force were converging. I think that what I'm learning here is that if it's not a permanent magnet in which the magnetic poles are fixed, there's no acceleration, and there's no "back-pressure" exerted. In other words, does a compass needle exert "back-pressure" on the Earth's magnetic field -- of course not -- it just gets in line, because it can spin freely. And it will not be pulled toward one of the poles unless it is nearer to that pole than to the other (and the lines of force are converging), but that's irrelevant for a B field generated by an electric current, because all of the lines of force are concentric.

So the places in the construct that assert the presence such forces are incorrect, and those sections need to be rebuilt. This includes the two sections that you have identified: 21. Inflow Channels, and 26. Cloud-base Striations. I'll search for more instances of this kind of error elsewhere in the hypothesis.

For the time being, I'm removing the offending paragraphs in Ch. 21. Maybe one day, with a better understanding of the forces involved, I'll re-attempt an explanation of the fine-grain detail in the photographs. But the main body of that chapter didn't rely on the magnetic force, so that's still OK.

As concerns Ch. 26, I'm walking away from the magnetic acceleration thing, for the reasons mentioned above -- there will be no acceleration due to magnetically-responsive particles in a B field generated by moving charges. Also, I have no really good reason to believe that the condensed water molecules in the cloud-base striations are charged themselves, so I can't use any kind of Lorentz force or ExB drift to explain this rotation, regardless of what magnetic fields might be present.

I did have another idea brewing, and that I considered to be more trivial than my (false) magnetic acceleration idea, but which might actually be the true nature of the phenomenon, so I'm going with it for the time being.

Quote:
We can expect the presence of a magnetic field around the upward flow of positive charges. This field will be augmented by a flow of electrons down from the cloud. The electrons will be moving much faster, so we can expect more magnetic force from these than from the upward-flowing positive ions. This magnetic field will not induce any rotation in the surrounding air. [thanks Kceovaisnt] But the magnetic force will orient the molecules according to the field. In the case of the water molecules, similar orientation is a necessary step in the condensation process. Hence it's possible that the rotation of the cloud-base striations has a fluid dynamic origin, but the limits of condensation are not formed by a pressure gradient. Rather, we're seeing the effects of the magnetic field surrounding the current within the surface updraft on the water molecules.

The condensation process then explains the conversion to a turbulent flow above the striations in Figure 79. Condensation releases latent heat, which causes an updraft. This updraft has nothing to do with the surface inflow, or with whatever is going on inside the mesocyclone. It is merely an artifact of condensation within the striations themselves.

It also makes sense that the cloud-base striations have a flat bottom. This is obviously not a thermodynamic vortex. By Helmholtz's laws, we know that all vortexes have to either close on themselves, terminate at a solid boundary, or taper to a point. But magnetic gyroradii have distinct values, depending on the charge density in the particles, and the speed at which the particles are moving. Hence when the surface inflow turns upward, and all of the magnetic lines of force resolve into a unified field surrounding the surface updraft, we see condensation emerge at a distinct radius.


Let me know what you think about that proposal.

Kceovaisnt wrote:
At this point I think your paper (with adjustments) is strong enough to start moving to the next phase. You should at least start assembling a list of candidates for a focused research team and perhaps start talking to institutes for research grants. This way you are no longer restricted by the limits of your knowledge. I can think of several studies that were conducted at my university that were far less important and were well funded by grant money. This could have real applications in the electronic forecast industry.


Your encouragement is heart-felt. But I'm a big believer in taking one set of criticisms at a time, and fully considering the implications. Otherwise I'll burn out a set of critics who all had the same objection, and they'll never give it a second look, since they already know that I'm a fool. :D So I'd like to fully consider the implications of the errors that you have found. Since the errors in question were not central to the proposal, and only affect a couple of specific attributes of tornadic supercells, the main guts of the hypothesis might survive. Nevertheless, the construct became what it is today by me being very willing to speculate, but also by me being eager to fix errors, and to eek every bit of value out of new knowledge. And it seems that every time I fix one thing, it suggests improvements in the accuracy of the other pieces. It's like once you fix the problem with the spark plugs, then you realize that you also have a problem with the fuel pump, so you fix that too. In the end, it all fits together. With this method, I think I'm getting this thing chased into a corner. So if I've got criticisms to process, I'm not looking for more until I'm done. ;)

As concerns funding, I guess I'm a little jaded at this point. I've corresponded with some of the leading researchers in the field, and I got flamed big-time. There isn't a lot of funding being dished out. Approximately $15 million gets spent in the U.S. every year on tornado research, but that's includes everybody -- NWS, educational institutions, private research facilities, etc. Most of it goes out 5 or 6 digits at a pop, and there isn't even enough money for the big league players, much less for people like me. It's such a complex problem domain, and so much money has been spent already, that there is a lot of skepticism when it comes to new ideas. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that it's a discredited research topic that's being kept on life-support because the general public still wants to see progress, but the people with the money aren't looking for new avenues of research.

That, of course, means that they'll be the last people in the world to find out that somebody else solved the problem -- without their help. So they hold back funding for new ideas, for the sake of credibility. Then they're going to lose their credibility because the problem had to be solved without their help. :o But try to explain that to them and you get canned dismissals. Oh well.

Regardless, the scientific community is not an integral unit -- everybody has a different perspective, and funding can come from anywhere. It's definitely not going to come from NWS, or from anywhere in the meteorological community proper. But that doesn't mean that there cannot possibly be any funding. It just means that I have no idea where to look. And not having professional credentials, I don't even really have the right to ask anyway. So someone more familiar with the process will have to help me with that.

As concerns candidates, I'll take whatever help I can get, from whatever source. With your focused criticisms, you have already provided enough value to be listed in the acknowledgments. Email me (using the address listed on the paper itself) with your real name if you want to be listed. If you're interested in doing more work, possibly even co-authoring a proposal and/or the eventual publication, let me know. We have a ways to go, but yes, eventually, it will get there. None of the people with whom I've corresponded are interested in advance work on the project, though I've been told many times that if I had funding, they'd love to participate. But for now, it's all unpaid labor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-09 07:57:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
BTW, I found another place where I'm relying on B fields operating on magnetically-responsive particles -- Ch. 36. Dust Sheaths. I've got the dust sheaths as iron oxides "trapped" in the magnetic field surrounding the tornado. Sounds like this is hogwash too. Now here, I do have reason to believe that the particles are (negatively) charged, and they're definitely moving. So I'll change the hypothesis to assert that the rotating charged particles are resolving into a solenoid, and are trapped by their electrostatic attraction to the positive charges inside the tornado.

You can carve another notch in your mouse, for another fix suggested by your insights. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-14 03:20:45 
Offline

Joined: 2010-09-02 19:11:15
Posts: 3
Sure thing. I would be happy to help where I can with regard to my domain of knowledge. As for the proposed changes, I cannot see anything that sticks out as "hogwash". I can see where it might make the explanation lack the solid implications that it currently has. Although this would be a mere side effect from creating higher credibility for this work.

I do understand your dilemma regarding funding. Perhaps you should focus on a rather inexpensive set of experiments to simply show that there is more out there to be investigated. Something to build an attraction toward the concept would help. I have little experience in the academic research world. In my industry we create a prototype well enough to attract venture capitalists. I suppose the difference is that the promise of return on investment is really a long term and long-shot transaction, and there is far greater amount of private capital investors and investor dollars in the practical industry. You most-likely know whats best for the future of your work. I think that your work still needs a team of researchers even if they are just playing a role as a consultant of sorts. Although I would be happy to be part of a panel, I am an engineer, not a scholar. With that comes less credibility in the minds of most scholars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-15 03:59:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Actually, speaking of small-scale experiments, I "think" that the essential forces at the base of the tornado can be duplicated in a simple laboratory apparatus. I'm updating the design right now, to reflect theoretical advances since the last time I thought about actually doing an experiment. I might be done in a couple of days. My friends have all volunteered to help build it, and a couple of them claim to be almost as good with a soldering gun as a CNC machine, so the electronic pieces won't be a problem either (we'll use one or more Cockroft-Walton multiplier circuits to develop the positive ions that will flow into the vortex). The rest will be simple carpentry and sheet metal fabrication. But I'll need an electrical engineer to sanity check the whole thing, and to guess at the loads and potential safety hazards. So if I could ask for an hour or two of your time, once I get the prints updated, it would enable the project to advance to the next level.

BTW, concurrently, I'm also considering simulating a dust devil, instead of, or in addition to, simulating a tornado. I never considered dust devils to be in the same family as tornadoes, and left them completely out of the picture. But recently I thought about it, and I am now convinced that they share some of the same principles. So I added a chapter on my site about it. And there is actually more funding available for studying dust devils than tornadoes, because NASA has detected dust devils on Mars, and it doesn't want to see the next generation of Martian rovers wiped out by one. So, dust devils are simpler, far more frequent on Earth, and the research is better funded. And it would evade the politics of tornadoes in the meteorological community. So that might be the way to go. Fight dust devils today. Fight tornadoes tomorrow. :D

Anyway, I'll let you know when I've done all I can do on the prints for the test apparatus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-09-20 05:10:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
OK, it took more than a couple of days, but here is the design for the apparatus that could be used to test the tornado hypothesis:

Tornado Vortex Exp.pdf

My biggest questions concern how to develop the degree of ionization necessary to simulate the real environment. The target should be 5 kV between the positively-charged air at the bottom and the negatively-charged electrodes at the top. Where the charges meet in the middle, everything should get totally neutralized. My understanding of Cockroft-Walton multiplier circuits in action is that after an hour or so, in an average sized room, you're likely to see 1 part per million that's charged, assuming that you've got a fan blowing over the electrodes. But this apparatus can't recycle partially-charged air to increase the charge, since the charge is supposed to get totally neutralized inside the vortex. So it needs to develop 5 kV in the air, and get the charge well distributed within the air, so that an even body force develops due to the potentials, and it has to develop that kind of charge in just one pass through the duct(s). So if my suspicions are correct, it might take a more elaborate apparatus just to get highly-charged air out of the bottom platform.

The negatively-charged electrodes at the top of the apparatus have to develop the same potential, but it doesn't have to be distributed as a space charge -- it just has to create a supply of electrons that can fly off the electrodes and follow the low pressure, high conductivity path through the vortex to the bottom. Still, I don't know how to develop 5 kV at those electrodes, unless I can just solder leads onto the same kind of multiplier circuits that are proposed for the bottom platform that develops the positive ions.

Anyway, have a look, and don't scratch your head too much -- if something isn't clearly explained, just ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes
PostPosted: 2010-10-08 05:58:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-24 15:31:34
Posts: 22
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
This thread is getting locked, and new posts on this topic should be made on the other board:

http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=5700

Sorry for any inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group