EHD Model of Tornadoes

[CharlesChandler]

I missed that, but I just watched the trailers. Looks like an alien tornado could easily mess up your whole day. My personal favorite made-for-TV electric tornado mockery was "NYC: Tornado Terror" (which aired in 2008). The graphics were hardly convincing, the dialog was awkward, and the plot was predictable. Yet the lead role was played by Nicole de Boer. But yes, electric tornado theory is consistently presented to the public as science fiction. Thanks for the scoop -- I'll watch it when it comes on again.

[Shaula]

If that presentation goes anything like this one, everybody will just say that looks can be deceiving, and just because I can produce vortexes that look like tornadoes in a scale model doesn't mean that the method employed has anything to do with the real thing.

And they would be right. There have been experiments done to make things that 'look like' black holes to acoustic waves. They were not the same thing as a cosmic black hole. They are merely analogous systems - your lab work might be useful in understanding forces but just because you generate these by electrohydrodynamic methods does not mean nature does.

When I say modelling I mean the production of a scientific model, not laboratory experiments. I mean detailed energy balances, a full (or as close as possible) mathematical description of the phenomenon (which will likely be simplified) that can be used to predict some observations that have not been made. The model should also postdict existing measurements. Then this has to be compared to the current models and shown to be better than them.

But if you're talking about real proof, such is by definition, or it's not proof. To prove something, you have to eliminate all other possibilities. If there are still two different possibilities, neither of them is proved.

In scientific terms, that is not true either. That is because it is accepted that there is no such thing as absolute proof in science. If your mathematical model outperforms the current models in predictive power (and is the best model available) with no internal mathematical inconsistencies then it is proven. Until something comes along which unproves it! GR is a proven theory, before the Newton's gravity was. There are alternative formulations to both, alternative mechanisms proposed. They are/were just the best at their given times.

[CharlesChandler]

When I say modeling I mean the production of a scientific model, not laboratory experiments.

The purely numeric tornado modeling projects that meteorologists have done in the past, with their massive simplifications, have typically chewed through grants in excess of $100,000 (including supercomputer time). An EHD simulation, which would start over from scratch with a whole new codebase, and even reducing point-charge math to fluid properties, would be a far more ambitious effort (> $200,000?). That ain't gonna happen. That's why I'm focusing on a laboratory demonstration. Aside from being easier to establish similitude with a physical apparatus, it would also have a direct practical application, for engineering studies (i.e., wind load tests). It also brings the cost within range for a private initiative. So that's a possibility.

I also mentioned earlier the feasibility of doing a space charge study on waterspouts. Just go down to Key West, Florida in the fall, and rent a high-speed motorboat. On average, several intercepts can be achieved in a week. (They get over 400 in that area during waterspout season.) So that's do-able. The results wouldn't prove anything, but if powerful space charges are found, which are not predicted by any other model, it would open the door for the model that can explain them.

[Shaula]

Which was why I said simplified. I am not talking about a full CFD simulation of the system, I am talking about a simple mathematical model showing energy balance, forces and so on with numerical values attached. Ideally referenced to any real world measurements you find. Formalising and showing the full logic (mathematically, not verbally and not based on "looks like") of what you started to do when I asked the question right back at the start of the paper is all I am really talking about here.

But it is your project - it is up to you. I just wanted to highlight that the lab measurements will prove nothing that has not been proven before. You are just using electric fields/charges to provide the forces.

[CharlesChandler]

I must be doing a Really Bad Job of explaining all of this.

Photography and videography are legitimate data collection methods in fluid dynamics. When particulate matter (e.g., dust or condensation) are present, they give us a volume of information on directions and speeds within the flow field that would be unattainable any other way. Getting enough anemometers into the flow field to provide the same amount of information would preclude the flow itself!

I understand that looks can be deceiving. For example, in post #79 I describe the difference between a "funnel cloud" and a "condensation funnel". Both are funnels, but there is a fundamental difference in flow field, and the apparent similarity is an artifact of the flow visualization mechanism. So you have to understand the microphysics of the data collection method, or you're liable to make mistakes. But the last time I checked, this was well-understood amongst scientists. It is true that "looks like a duck" science might be bad science. But that doesn't mean that all good science rejects photographic and videographic evidence. It just means that you have to study the data before accepting the conclusions. You can't just assume that somebody is wrong because he is disagreeing with the mainstream, and if he cites visual evidence, dismiss it as "looks like a duck" bad science. Such dismissals are themselves bad science.

For that matter, I can present instrumented data as well, in support of the contention that in a tornado, there is an extreme low pressure at the ground (as much as 100 mb below ambient!), but then you'll just say, "Those are just numbers. Numbers don't prove anything."

The reality here is that if we look at enough photography and videography, preferring examples in which the microphysics afford a good idea of the entire flow field, tornadoes are, in fact, bottleneck vortexes. So you say,

I just wanted to highlight that the lab measurements will prove nothing that has not been proven before. You are just using electric fields/charges to provide the forces.

This indicates that I have failed to make my central point.

If I was actually just trying to demonstrate that I could produce the same effects, with EM forces substituted for classical fluid dynamics, what would be the use? I think that you're saying that I could get away with it if I do a good enough presentation, but in real science, it wouldn't pass Occam's Razor. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not just trying to get away with floating a proposal that could be true. Nobody can explain the concentration of energy at the base of the vortex. Scientists can't demonstrate it in a physical model, nor can they simulate it with off-the-shelf CFD. The physical models require artificial encouragement to develop an extreme low pressure and a high swirl ratio right at the boundary, and the numeric models do the same thing, just with custom code instead of with artificial physical constraints. To the untrained eye, a vortex is a vortex, but to a fluid dynamicist, there are different types of vortexes, and while tornadoes do not fit neatly into the category of open-air vacuum vortexes, they do match all of the properties of bottleneck vacuum vortexes. The difference is non-trivial, as there is an enormous concentration of energy at a bottleneck. This is what gives tornadoes their destructive power.

If it was a snake, it would have bit us by now. But you're not convinced that there is unexplained energy at the base of a tornado, and you think that I'm just trying to establish another possibility.

Where in the scientific community do you go to find somebody who can actually evaluate the physics of a proposal? Either I find such a place, or I'll use the documentation of my attempts to demonstrate to the general public that there is no such place.

Do you think that I'll get more learned responses when I take this onto some meteorological boards? I'll PM you when you do, if you want some real entertainment, because that's going to be fun. As soon as I start talking about electric tornadoes, they'll start asking me if I also think that the government is causing and/or steering tornadoes with HAARP satellites, unless of course aliens interfere. But I have to document not just that I ran this proposal up one flagpole. I have to show that I got dismissed by all sectors of the scientific community, on the basis of the fact that I disagreed with the mainstream, in spite of showing definitive proof and consistency with all of the available field data.

If your mathematical model outperforms the current models in predictive power (and is the best model available) with no internal mathematical inconsistencies then it is proven.

OK, that's not as rigorous of a definition as I'm using, but I'll go with it. Now, how do I demonstrate that my model is the best act in town, if I can't get people to acknowledge the validity of the data that my model explains, and which speak directly to the energy release that is the crux of the whole matter, which existing models cannot explain? Looks can be deceiving. Numbers don't prove anything. Laboratory measurements don't prove anything. Ah, it's all in the presentation! What part of this do I not understand?

[chrlzs]

I must be doing a Really Bad Job of explaining all of this.

I hate to be harsh, but yes.

I'm not a scientist

If you were, and possessed a thorough grounding not only in the requisite disciplines, but also how to go about properly developing a hypothesis/model/theory and what was required BEFORE you get to the point that you (think you) are at, I suspect you would see where the problem lies.

Scientists can't demonstrate it in a physical model, nor can they simulate it with off-the-shelf CFD.

That may or may not be correct, but it is one of many statements where you (directly or indirectly) happily slap down current theories, scientists and the scientific method they have used to get where they are. Then, you happily leap onto pretty much anything that you think supports your idea, without any real attempt to vet that information, or to put numbers (or indeed anything) up that actually supports your idea. Let alone all the real stuff like predictions, tests, repeatability, presenting examples of how your theory better supports the observations in a USABLE fashion, not just by verbiage...

Charles, I'm not formally a scientist either, but I have worked in the sciences for a long time, including having to represent, look after, support, and understand their approaches and needs (as a research facility manager). And I have no end of respect for the scientific method, and the knowledge & wisdom they have gathered from doing the hard yards to become qualified in their disciplines (many of these folks were Professors, department heads/chairs..). The vast majority of these people are FAR from close-minded. But they also know how to spend their time productively and avoid dead ends. If they see genuine anomalies, genuine possibilities for new approaches, they will investigate. If not...

These people not only know their stuff, they know how 'new stuff' needs to be vetted and presented so as not to waste their time. If you aren't getting the attention you think you deserve, the problem is very possibly not with the 'establishment'.

If I heard anywhere above how you were undertaking a Degree/Doctorate in any of the requisite fields, or your background/experience working in those fields, or your successful offers to universities or research organisations to help out with related projects so you can gather experience, I might be a bit more sympathetic. And I suspect as a part of that process you might experience some important "Oh..." moments.


As for the last paragraph in your post above, that sums up your communication problems nicely. The way you have presented it, it is unclear whether you are being sarcastic (and believe me, you will get NOWHERE if it is..), or whether you seriously don't understand that what you have presented here DOES NOT explain or validate your 'data' or the purported but undocumented, unquantified 'energy release' that you allege is not explained by current models. And it seems you still don't acknowledge that of course laboratory experiments and numbers are useful as evidence - BUT ONLY if they are relevant, properly done, testable, repeatable and logically applied to your idea in a way that shows you have considered all the possibilities, all the contributing factors. You are falling well short of that, I'm afraid.

[CharlesChandler]

Let's see if we can nail down exactly where the problem is.

I'm saying that the defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground.

Do you believe that this is unsupported? Be specific, please.

[Shaula]

I'd like to see your claims about the state of the mainstream evaluated by a professional in the field. And how they force their models to behave as required. I hear the "mainstream has no explanation for X" claim a lot in astronomy and it is almost always wrong or based on a misinterpretation (sometimes wilful). But I am not really qualified and don't have the background to assess this for tornado modelling. All my CFD experience is oceanographic! Very different scale.

Do you think you would get more response on the met forums if you started with the idea that the tornado must have an energy source at its base? Discuss that model with no reference to electric forces, sidestepping any "what is this source" questions at first. Focus on the maths, the predictions of this sort of model and how you could tell it apart rigorously from any others. Leave the red flag subjects out of the picture until you have convinced yourself and maybe them that this solves the modelling problems you have highlighted.

[CharlesChandler]

I'd like to see your claims about the state of the mainstream evaluated by a professional in the field.

Me too! In post #67, I briefly summarized comments that I've gotten in the past. But I figured that it was time to make a more determined effort to solicit opinions on these issues. So I just issued a call for criticisms to the following professionals:

Meteorologists:
Howard Bluestein, OU
Don Burgess, OU/CIMMS
David Dowell, NCAR
Paul Markowski, PSU
Erik Rasmussen, Rasmussen Systems
Yvette Richardson, PSU
Lou Wicker, NSSL
Joshua Wurman, CSWR
William Gallus, Iowa State

Geophysicists:
Don MacGorman, NSSL
Ted Mansell, NSSL
Earle Williams, MIT
Timothy Lang, CSU

Aerodynamicists:
Partha Sarkar, Iowa State
Fred Haan, Iowa State

By no means is this an exhaustive list of the who's who in tornado research, but any bigger list would certainly have these people on it. Here is a copy of the email that I sent.

Good day!

Expert opinions on tornadogenesis have been requested in a public debate. While you might not consider engaging in such passtimes to be a high priority, you at least have the right to know when issues concerning you are being publicly discussed.

The debate started with this assertion:

"The defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. From there, the radius expands in the direction of the flow. The constriction of the radius at the ground is caused by an extreme low pressure that supplies the necessary centripetal force. Above the ground, the low pressure relaxes in the direction of the flow, eventually faring into the lesser pressure deficit within the parent thunderstorm, and the radius expands with the loss of centripetal force approaching the source of the low pressure."

This has been challenged.

Furthermore, this characteristic of tornadoes is attributed to a combination of fluid dynamic and electromagnetic forces.

The discussion is located here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....l-of-Tornadoes

The primary assertions are all made in the first 4 posts.

If you care to offer an opinion, but would rather not have to create an account on that forum, you can simply reply to this email. But to avoid confusion, please clearly designate comments that you wish to make public, with something like:

[publish this] my great criticism of electric tornado theory [/publish this]

Statements not clearly designated will not be published. I'd be happy to answer questions offline if you want more info before responding, so feel free to ask.

My most sincere regards,

Mr. Charles Chandler

PS: my apologies for the presumptuousness of casting such a broad net in the search of critical reviews, but as I said, at the very least, all of you have the right to know about public discussions within your fields of focus.

I wouldn't bet money that any of them will respond, as they don't generally spend their time in bulletin board discussions with the general public, which can be very time-consuming, and are not always productive. But you asked, and I've done enough work that I at least have the right to request criticisms from public servants. Awaiting responses...

Do you think you would get more response on the met forums if you started with the idea that the tornado must have an energy source at its base?

I hear what you're saying. But the biggest problem is convincing people that there is actually a need to take a closer look at the mechanics of tornadoes. As I hinted in post #67, meteorologists got burned out on the physics of tornadoes, and now it's all just probabilistics to them. So in general, I'm solving a problem that they just don't have -- they've found another way to approach the topic that keeps them out of exotic theories that never went anywhere before. I understand the reasoning. But their model focuses entirely on the dynamics of the mesocyclone as the prime mover in tornadoes. Yet only 1 in 4 mesocyclones spawn tornadoes. This results in a 75% false alarm rate. Furthermore, tornadoes can occur in the absence of mesocyclones, and this is responsible for the fact that 29% of all tornadoes strike without warning. These statistics have stabilized, and I'm not the only one who is convinced that they aren't going to improve with the existing strategy. A recent paper stated that even with dual Doppler radars within 15 km of a supercell, storms that produce tornadoes are difficult to distinguish from those that do not. See:

Markowski, P. M., and Richardson, Y. P., 2009: Tornadogenesis: Our current understanding, forecasting considerations, and questions to guide future research. Atmospheric Research, 93(1~3): 3-10.

And that's when the data are studied after-the-fact. Operationally speaking, with only one radar providing information on a storm, and from a greater distance away (producing less detailed data), and with little time for analysis, we can't expect improvements in the accuracy of tornado warnings. So $15 million a year are spent on average in the U.S., and almost all of it goes into data collection and the probabilistic modeling thereof. One day, they'll realize that they're past the point of diminishing returns, and they'll have to look elsewhere for progress. If I'm right, there is an EM component that has to be present if a tornado is going to form. If all of the other factors are there, but the inflow is not charged, violent rotation at the ground will not occur. Without looking at the active ingredient in tornadoes, of course the tornado warnings will be unreliable, but this could improve if EM data are included, in field studies and in operational forecasting.

How much is this going to cost? It's going to cost just about $15 million per year on average! In other words, I'm not saying that we should spend more money on tornadoes because I have this exotic new theory that needs to be tested. We already know how big of a problem tornadoes are, and the budget has already been balanced, considering all of the other problems in this world. So $15 million per year it is. But some of that money should be spent searching for the missing ingredient in tornadoes that is responsible for the inaccuracies in tornado warnings. That's not unreasonable.

But like I said, the biggest problem is in convincing people that there is actually an opportunity for progress in a more detailed analysis of the physics. So I'm thinking that what-ifs aren't going to do it. I have to show that there is a high chance of success, because the very definitions of vacuum vortexes are telling us that tornadoes are closed systems, and there is only one force (i.e., EM) that could create a closed system in the atmosphere, and in only one configuration.

[quotation]

Here's a longshot Charles, but have you delved into any insurance actuarial research? Folk wisdom holds that tornadoes are drawn to mobile home parks. I've actually heard old men with no scientific background or interest whatsoever speculate that this is so because the aluminum siding on the trailers acts like an antenna. What brought that speculation up was the observation that all the new trailers seem to be clad in vinyl, not aluminum. Of course this could simply be due to cost, but who knows. Buried amongst some obscure actuarial statistical analysis, you might find the equations you're likely to need. Just a thought.

[CharlesChandler]

There might actually be some truth to that. To start, we have to temper the lore a little bit. It's not so much that tornadoes are drawn to trailer parks, but that if they do hit a trailer park, they'll do a lot more damage, so this dominates the statistics. 75% of all tornadoes are EF1s, which only do shingle damage to a wood-frame house, but can destroy a trailer. So an EF1 comes through and there's $50,000 worth of roof repairs needed, and trailers totaling $200,000 are gone. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that things get lofted by tornadoes for non-aerodynamic reasons, which can only be EM, and conductivity would definitely be a factor. So a lightweight trailer with a metal skin might pick up more triboelectric charging than its vinyl-clad neighbor, and go for a ride.

My brother talked to an insurance salesman about this initiative, and was told that we wouldn't get any help from insurance companies. They make their money selling insurance, not in mitigating the risk to reduce the need for insurance. But the guy said that there are state and federal organizations related to the insurance industry that do take initiatives that the insurance companies do not. Maybe they would be willing to share the stats. It didn't sound promising, so I didn't pursue it. But they probably have much better information than the government. While FEMA annually pays out something like $150 million due to tornadoes, the insurance companies in the U.S. average $850 million per year. So they might know all kinds of stuff that the gov't doesn't. Trailer park preference would be one thing to look for. Another would be the supposed effect of a tornadic storm passing over a river or lake, which would only make sense if the conductivity of the Earth was a factor.

My brother suggested that we look for funding from the insurance companies, which isn't going to happen, but maybe he asked the wrong question -- perhaps the real value would be in the stats. Hmmm...

[Reality Check]

What would you like for me to support? I failed to convince the folks on the JREF board that tornadoes are funnel-shaped. (Now that's skeptical!) Are you asking me to support that contention?

Actually you failed to convince the folks on the JREF board (such as me) that all tornadoes are funnel-shaped. There are various shapes of tornadoes. Most are "funnel-shaped" but there are cylindrical ("stovepipe") tornadoes.

[Reality Check]

Hi Charles: Back in post #33 you make a couple of predictions from EDT theory about the electrical field and temperatures within tornadoes. It took me a few minutes to find out that the electrical and thermal properties of tornadoes have been measured for decades.
The obvious question is: How does the EDT predictions match up with the observations.

For example: The Electric Field Changes during Tornadoes Compared with Other Severe Thunderstorms (1966) FJ Anderson, et. al.

[chrlzs]

...Here is a copy of the email that I sent.

Expert opinions on tornadogenesis have been requested in a public debate {at an astronomy forum?}. While you might not consider engaging in such passtimes {sic - spelling matters when you are wanting experts to take you seriously} to be a high priority, you at least have the right to know when issues concerning you are being publicly discussed. {that suggests you have named/quoted them - have you?}

"The defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. From there, the radius expands in the direction of the flow. The constriction of the radius at the ground is caused by an extreme low pressure that supplies the necessary centripetal force. Above the ground, the low pressure relaxes in the direction of the flow, eventually faring into the lesser pressure deficit within the parent thunderstorm, and the radius expands with the loss of centripetal force approaching the source of the low pressure."

This has been challenged. {you don't initially say by who..}
...
Furthermore, this characteristic of tornadoes is attributed to a combination of fluid dynamic and electromagnetic forces. {ditto}
...
The discussion is located {at an astronomy forum..?}
...
The primary assertions are all made in the first 4 posts. {there's the first clue as to whose 'idea' it is..}
...
If you care to offer an opinion, but would rather not have to create an account on that forum, you can simply reply to this email. But to avoid confusion, please clearly designate comments that you wish to make public, with something like:
[publish this] my great criticism of electric tornado theory [/publish this] {that's presumptuous and smarmy, and the suggestion that they should bother joining a forum that isn't specifically related to their field is a waste of time (yours and theirs)}.

My most sincere regards {again, keep it simple or it sounds like smarm - just use "Sincerely,"}

PS: my apologies for the presumptuousness of casting such a broad net in the search of critical reviews, but as I said, at the very least, all of you have the right to know about public discussions within your fields of focus.

Charles, I've just left in the bits that would make me, if I received that, simply throw it into the bin. I'm afraid the overall tone is of antagonism, even smugness, instead of any genuine request for help - which is what you need.. The approach sounds like "I've posted the truth, now you better join in before I embarrass you further..". But in actual fact, I think you are at the stage where you have an idea, and in order to develop that to anything like a hypothesis, you need to know an awful lot more about mainstream science relating to that you wish to call 'defining characteristics', before you can start to put numbers to why your theory is even applicable, let alone better.

I wouldn't bet money that any of them will respond, as they don't generally spend their time in bulletin board discussions with the general public, which can be very time-consuming, and are not always productive.

So why set yourself up for failure? Or is it that you enjoy saying that mainstream science is deliberately shunning you...? I'd strongly suggest you talk to someone (even just an English teacher) about how to communicate effectively with scientists (or anyone) and show them this thread and how you are approaching this..

I've done enough work that I at least have the right to request criticisms from public servants.

I don't think you have. You may have done lots and lots of work, but it's *relevant*, provable, testable etc work that is the key. And 'public servants' - I thought you were after scientific opinion - was that a Freudian slip showing the level of criticism you actually want?

But the biggest problem is convincing people that there is actually a need to take a closer look at the mechanics of tornadoes.

And maybe that's because the current understanding of the mechanics isn't as terrible as you claim.

As I hinted in post #67, meteorologists got burned out on the physics of tornadoes, and now it's all just probabilistics to them.

So you say - but I see little or no evidence of that in any of the above posts.

[CharlesChandler]

So I spend 10 years seeing what I could do to further the understanding of these natural disasters, in the hopes that maybe it might save some lives. And the responses that I get when I publicly discuss the work that I've done mainly have to do with my presentational technique.

Captain, I think we've found the problem!

For you, science is an old boys club.

"If you pay your dues, and you treat the elders with a great deal of respect, maybe one day you'll be a senior member, and people will respect you too. But if you don't understand that your only hope is to be like them, you'll always be a nobody."

Does the physics even matter? I think not.

If you and me were paramedics, and I was working on somebody, trying to save his life, and if I did or said anything at all with which you could find fault, I think that you'd tell me that I failed the test, and that I should go home and study some more. Meanwhile, the guy dies. But that wouldn't matter. You found fault with me, and that's all you care about. I didn't treat you with enough respect, or with precisely the right kind of respect. If I'm going to save lives, I need to get with an English teacher first, because nobody wants to be saved by somebody who misspells words.

But enough of that. I'd like to repeat my earlier question.

I'm saying that the defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground.

Do you believe that this is unsupported? Be specific, please.

[quotation]

ach, the burden is on you mein freund...quit blaming others and find a way to prove your point in a way that provides no counter-argument...you can do it

[CharlesChandler]

I'm trying... I know I'm bad at this, but how good do you have to be? I haven't even convinced anybody that funnel clouds are funnel shaped.

Here's a thought. Consider the following depiction of the Sullivan model, which is one of the accepted numeric models of tornadoes, and which is used in tornado simulations.

Sullivan model

Does that look like it's funnel shaped to you? If not, what does it look like to you? Or can't you tell?

[korjik]

Hi Charles: Back in post #33 you make a couple of predictions from EDT theory about the electrical field and temperatures within tornadoes. It took me a few minutes to find out that the electrical and thermal properties of tornadoes have been measured for decades.
The obvious question is: How does the EDT predictions match up with the observations.

For example: The Electric Field Changes during Tornadoes Compared with Other Severe Thunderstorms (1966) FJ Anderson, et. al.

I knew they were somewhere but I was just too lazy to look.

I second the question:

How do EDT predictions match up with the observed E and B fields in tornadoes?

Edit p.s: This is a question asked under the rules of the ATM section of the board. Charles, it is time for your hypothesis to be tested against observation.

[CharlesChandler]

Actually you failed to convince the folks on the JREF board (such as me) that all tornadoes are funnel-shaped. There are various shapes of tornadoes. Most are "funnel-shaped" but there are cylindrical ("stovepipe") tornadoes.

More specifically then, I'm saying that the defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. This would include funnels, near-stovepipes, wedges, bells, etc. From the fluid dynamic perspective, all of these shapes have one thing in common: the radius is tighter at the ground than aloft. This means that there is an extreme low pressure at the ground.

Do you believe that this is unsupported?

Hi Charles: Back in post #33 you make a couple of predictions from EDT theory about the electrical field and temperatures within tornadoes. It took me a few minutes to find out that the electrical and thermal properties of tornadoes have been measured for decades. The obvious question is: How does the EDT predictions match up with the observations.

How do EDT predictions match up with the observed E and B fields in tornadoes?

I don't understand the questions. There are two types of "dictions": predictions, and postdictions. The predictions that I'm making are for data that have not been collected yet. Otherwise, they'd be postdictions. As concerns the existing data, I'm basing my model on all of the available data. So as far as I know, my model matches up quite nicely with the observations. So I "think" that you're asking me to cite the data that I'm using, is that correct? If so, I laid out the guts of it in post #4. Would you like for me to elaborate on those infos? I'll be happy to go into more detail -- I just want to understand what you're asking before I open up another flood here. I don't have access to anything but the abstract of the article that you cited. I could talk on the general topic of thunderstorm electrification, and of the fundamental differences between tornadic and non-tornadic storms. The abstract doesn't suggest this, but that are several significant differences.

[Shaula]

So I spend 10 years seeing what I could do to further the understanding of these natural disasters, in the hopes that maybe it might save some lives. And the responses that I get when I publicly discuss the work that I've done mainly have to do with my presentational technique.

For you, science is an old boys club.

Or to put it another way: Someone spends years and years studying and then gets sent a lot of words presented as an essay rather than a science paper. They get many papers like this, in fact, all telling them that they must have missed something obvious in their studies because everything they have done is actually wrong and the real answer is buried in this mass of words and comparisons of pictures.

It may be just your frustration talking but these attacks on the mainstream do not further your cause at all. There is a language and style to science that has evolved to ensure that ideas are communicated clearly and concisely. At a rough estimate if I were to go through this thread and try to turn it into a paper I would bet on nearly a month of work. You are asking someone to do that for you by not taking the time to communicate effectively with scientists. Someone who will, no doubt, be getting essays from more than one source. When are they meant to be able to do their own research if they have to dedicate all their time to rewriting and reviewing stuff sent to them?

[orionjim]

I knew they were somewhere but I was just too lazy to look.

I second the question:

How do EDT predictions match up with the observed E and B fields in tornadoes?

Edit p.s: This is a question asked under the rules of the ATM section of the board. Charles, it is time for your hypothesis to be tested against observation.

I’m confused, where did Charles mention EDT, I couldn’t find it in post #33; the first place that acronym shows up in this thread is in Reality Check’s post #103. Is EDT somehow related to EHD?

I also want to say to Charles that your reference of the Sullivan Model has been a big help to me, I think an even better reference would be to his paper which can be found here:

http://thinktech.lib.ttu.edu/ttu-ir/...pdf?sequence=1

[Swift]

So I spend 10 years seeing what I could do to further the understanding of these natural disasters, in the hopes that maybe it might save some lives. And the responses that I get when I publicly discuss the work that I've done mainly have to do with my presentational technique.

Captain, I think we've found the problem!

For you, science is an old boys club.

"If you pay your dues, and you treat the elders with a great deal of respect, maybe one day you'll be a senior member, and people will respect you too. But if you don't understand that your only hope is to be like them, you'll always be a nobody."

Does the physics even matter? I think not.

CharlesChandler,

Your comments in this post are a little rude. The onus here is on you to prove your idea. Don't confuse people questioning you with "an old boys club" and don't even hint that they have less respect for life than you.

By the way, you have had your 30 days for this thread. We might consider leaving it open for longer. Please Report my post and explain why it should be given more time, otherwise it will be closed.

[korjik]

More specifically then, I'm saying that the defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. This would include funnels, near-stovepipes, wedges, bells, etc. From the fluid dynamic perspective, all of these shapes have one thing in common: the radius is tighter at the ground than aloft. This means that there is an extreme low pressure at the ground.

Do you believe that this is unsupported?





I don't understand the questions. There are two types of "dictions": predictions, and postdictions. The predictions that I'm making are for data that have not been collected yet. Otherwise, they'd be postdictions. As concerns the existing data, I'm basing my model on all of the available data. So as far as I know, my model matches up quite nicely with the observations. So I "think" that you're asking me to cite the data that I'm using, is that correct? If so, I laid out the guts of it in post #4. Would you like for me to elaborate on those infos? I'll be happy to go into more detail -- I just want to understand what you're asking before I open up another flood here. I don't have access to anything but the abstract of the article that you cited. I could talk on the general topic of thunderstorm electrification, and of the fundamental differences between tornadic and non-tornadic storms. The abstract doesn't suggest this, but that are several significant differences.

You are far past the point where you should be saying something along the lines of:

This is the data from the tornado just outside of Somewhere, KS that occured on Somday, Someyear. It was an F? tornado with wind speeds of Something as measured by Experiment X. This is the data from the Something experiment by the University of Someplace. The magnetic field and electric field data are presented here as collected by the Something experiment. This signature in the data is the expected signature due to my idea. When we compare the strength of the signature from the Something 1, Something 2, and Something 3 platforms, we find that the effect is a distance a,b, and c from the probes, and when compared to the known locations of the probes, we see that the signature is coming from within A Small Distance from the tornado we are studying. Furthermore, by checking the strength data over time, we see that the location of the signature tracks the track of the tornado quite well

That would be how you prove you are on the right track. What I wrote may be oversimplistic, but it is in the right direction. You are far past the point where you need to actually match data to theory directly. With the currents and power you are talking about, you should be able to track a tornado.

[CharlesChandler]

I'm basing my work on the existing data. You'll find a representative sampling in posts #4 and #11. I could have presented more, but nobody seemed interested. In my model, B fields don't do anything except reveal the presence of a Townsend avalanche inside the tornado. There "might" be a slight Lorentz force acting on the inflow that "might" be just powerful enough to help pick the direction of rotation, as presented in post #70. But the actual amount of force is trivial, and doesn't figure significantly in my work. There are very few B field data, and the most reliable study was from 10 km away. (They weren't chasing tornadoes -- the tornado happened to pass within 10 km of a fixed installation.) While the equipment used was top-notch, their numbers, taken at face value, indicated a sustained current of 720 A inside the tornado, which is ridiculous. Most of the literature estimates the current at 100~250 A, but my model only requires 1 A for an EF1 tornado, so I'm well within range there. For E fields, my calculations are based on 5 kV/m. Typical E fields under an active thunderstorm average 10 kV/m, and frequently get as high as 30 kV/m just before the potential is discharged in a lightning strike. In rare cases, E exceeds 100 kV/m, producing a corona discharge (known as St. Elmo's Fire when it occurs in the atmosphere). Since my energy budget works with just half of the typical force, I'm well within range there too.

korjik is right -- the next step is a laboratory demonstration. And the next step after that will be the collection of more field data. Then I need to establish similitude between laboratory experiments and field data, proving that this tornado was caused by these forces.

The way korjik puts it is curious. We're talking about millions of dollars worth of research here. (VORTEX2, a 13-week field study conducted in 2009-2010, costed $12 million. Unfortunately for my purposes they didn't collect any EM data. How do you study thunderstorms and not collect any EM data whatsoever? Anyway...) korjik makes it sound like anybody posting on the ATM who isn't presenting the results of a 7-digit initiative can be safely dismissed. If the OP was correct, the poster surely would have already spent the millions to prove it, and we wouldn't be arguing. Therefore, I must be wrong.

So where am I going to get the money to do this all by myself, as it's not looking like I'm going to get any support from the meteorological community?

You say that if I was a nicer guy, or if I had better credentials, I'd know how to get funding. As reasonable as that sounds, in this case, it actually isn't true. Bernard Vonnegut tried for 40 years to advance this initiative. He was as nice of a guy as there ever was, and he was admired and respected, even by those who disagreed with him. And he had great credentials. He made a name for himself by being involved in the discovery of cloud seeding in the late 1940s, and his successive contributions in the study of tropospheric and stratospheric thermodynamics and electrification are foundational to any modern study. If anybody ever knew how to accomplish something in the scientific community, he did. But as the modern meteorological method emerged, there was a major shift, from physics to probabilistics, and Vonnegut's approach was disenfranchised.

So now you say that if somebody like that can't do it, it must be wrong. Even nice guys with great credentials can be wrong. Sure they can. And generally speaking, when one person disagrees with the community, one person is wrong. But there's a reason why rigorous science considers that to be fallacious reasoning (i.e., argumentum ad populum). The community isn't always right. The truth is that all scientific progress disagrees with the consensus. We can't just treat all new proposals as homework assignments to be graded on their reaffirmation of the status quo. If the scientific community is no longer capable of evaluating proposals based on intrinsic merit, even when presented with definitive proof that is actually fairly simple, that community is no longer scientific. Bound to the consensus, they'll quickly reach the point of diminishing returns, and their usefulness to society will drop rapidly. Then it will be amateurs making all of the progress, ignoring the consensus and venturing where credible scientists fear to tread.

So how am I going to get the funding to continue this research, and then get anybody to listen to me, considering the enormous confidence that people have in the scientific community?

I'm going to make the money that I need, and destroy people's confidence in the scientific community, at the same time. You think that meteorologists are so proficient at what they do, that nobody could ever challenge them? Think again. I'm in the process of showing that an amateur can do better tornado theory than scientists. It's already well-known that amateur storm chasers are better than scientists in the field. But is it just severe weather? Hardly.

I know farmers, fishermen, carpenters, and American Indians who can all make short-term weather forecasts better than any meteorologist. To prove it to the world, all I have to do is build a website where people can log in and enter their forecasts. After the fact, I'll import the meteorological data that were collected, and give all of the forecasters a score. Going forward, if there are multiple forecasts for the same area, I'll weight the forecasts on the basis of the forecasters' running scores. So whoever is best at it will bubble to the top, and people logging onto the site to find out what the weather is going to do will naturally prefer the forecaster who is the best for that area.

Once I've got all of that hooked up, I can easily add more intelligence. For example, I can develop weighted average forecasts. The lead forecaster might say one thing, but everybody else, including forecasters who are not that far behind in the stats, are saying another. I'll produce a more reliable forecast by averaging the numbers, giving a bit more weight to the lead forecaster, but tempering the forecast with what everybody else is saying.

The next step will be to break out the various elements of the forecasts, and weight them separately. Different people are better at different things. For example, farmers don't really care which way the wind is blowing, or how fast, but they definitely care about how much rain will fall. On the other hand, fishermen don't care about rain -- they'll already wet from the sea spray! But they do care (because their lives might depend on it) how fast the wind is blowing, and in some cases, from which direction. So fishermen might be better at wind speed and direction, while farmers might be better at rainfall. Hence I can come up with a more accurate forecast by weighting each factor separately, on the basis of who is the best at each factor.

So why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

The key to the whole thing is collecting the forecasts from the people. The proliferation of personal computers solves this problem -- the people will do their own data entry. All I have to do is do some rather simple web code to facilitate the entry of predicted temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, and the amount & type of precipitation, for the target date, time, and location. Importing the data after the fact, so I can give people grades, will be easy, as it's relatively lightweight data, and it's all in the same format (all over the world). If gov't agencies (such as NWS) try to block access to these data, it wouldn't matter, because the amateur meteorological community collects data too, which are fed into amateur servers. The reason why nobody thought of this before is that it's really only been in the last 5 years or so that enough people had enough computers to make this feasible. My "forecasters" (farmers, fishermen, carpenters, etc.) weren't exactly in the first generation to go out and buy computers for home use. But now, even these people have computers, or if they don't, they have a neighbor or a friend who does, and the input of just a few numbers won't be much bother. So now we can mine the data. People are now comfortable with social networking, and other endeavors (such as Wikipedia) have shown that high-value information can come straight from the general public. So the essential premise have already been validated, and the technology is now in place.

Note that the same code will work for the whole world, since it's the same information, and the same post-processing. Wherever there are people, there is weather, and there are people with a natural born gift for predicting it. Wherever there are computers connected to the Internet, these people will use my site to make the information available to others.

So how is that going to provide me with the money to continue my research?

Meteorological sites are the most lucrative sites on the Internet. What's the one type of site that everybody hits, every day? Right -- the weather site. So they're high-traffic sites. They also tolerate high-impact advertising. You're just there to get a couple of tidbits of information, so the flashing banner on the side doesn't devalue the information much. Once you find out whether or not it's going to rain, you take a look at the ad. The click-through rate for weather sites is the highest for all site types on the Web. So these sites are making good money.

Why do I think that people will come to my site, instead of going to other sites that are already better established?

They'll come to my site because my forecasts will be the best, by definition, and I'll be able to prove it. It won't be just farmers, fishermen, carpenters, and American Indians competing on my site. I'll import forecasts from all other sources, such as meteorological agencies as well as private enterprises. So it will be Farmer Fred, Carpenter Carl, NWS, The Weather Channel, the Channel 5 News, etc., getting scored, and I'll show you who is the best in your area. In other words, I'll be like the Consumer Reports of weather forecasting, and I'll rate all of the products based on objective metrics. I'll show the raw data, and the processing algorithms. So you could turn on Channel 5 and get your forecasts there. They'll tell you that their forecasts are the best. So does Channel 7. Or you can come to my site, where I'll tell you what Channel 5 is saying, and Channel 7, and I'll show their running scores. Before long, everybody will just come to my site.

As concerns intellectual property rights, I might not be able to say that this forecast came from The Weather Channel, and that one came from the Channel 5 News. But I can still import the data and score it. The Weather Channel can't exactly copyright 1013 mb for Saturday, and 1014 mb for Sunday. It's all just numbers, which are not copyright-able. If they still figure out a way to sue me, I can show good precedence for aftermarket products (such as Consumer Reports) that sell evaluations of other products. So I think I'll survive.

So what if somebody else does the same thing, and tries to compete with me?

No well-established weather site can compete with me. If The Weather Channel starts up their own social networking site, it won't be credible. The Weather Channel is already saying that their forecasts are the best. So it will be no surprise that their social networking site still says that they're the best. It would be like Chrysler starting up their own version of Consumer Reports. Who would buy it? "Chrysler Reports" will say that Chrysler makes the best cars. They're already saying that, and it's in the brochures that they hand out. But that's no competition for Consumer Reports, which provides unbiased evaluations of all of the products. So The Weather Channel won't be my competition, or any other established weather site.

Only somebody who doesn't already have a name in the forecasting business could go into direct competition with me. And they would only be able to compete if I stopped enhancing my site. If I put 95% of the profits back into business, I'll be tough to beat. If anybody really wants the market, they'd be better off just offering to buy me out. Then I get the money to continue my tornado research.

And at that point, I won't have to worry about meteorologists being so credible that nobody will listen to an amateur. Everybody will be getting their weather forecasts from amateurs. And the real kicker, from the perspective of the meteorological community, is that if I don't do this, somebody else will. There's a lot of money on the table here. Meteorologists are only safe if nobody else realizes it. Ummm, they need to be afraid!

In the most fundamental sense, I think that this is a slam-dunk because the general public likes objective metrics. They want to see products and services evaluated, so they know they're getting their money's worth, and that they're basing their decisions on accurate information. So where do you go for objective metrics in meteorology? They don't exist! Meteorologists have convinced everybody that it's unfair to maintain stats on forecasters, because it's not an exact science. This is why no forecaster will ever publicly refer to a previous forecast, even if he got it right when nobody else did. That would introduce the concept of evaluating the performance of a forecaster after the fact, and they don't want that. Well, nobody likes it when performance statistics are maintained on them. Everybody would rather that if they could talk a great story today, it just doesn't matter how bad they screwed up yesterday. But the general public loves objective metrics, and it's time that we apply this to meteorology. If meteorologists are actually the best, this initiative will prove it. Then again, if they suck compared to amateurs, they're finished. Either way, we're definitely going to find out. Personally, I think that this is the beginning of the end for the discipline of meteorology as we know it.

And then there will be progress in tornado theory.

[Reality Check]

I’m confused, where did Charles mention EDT, I couldn’t find it in post #33; the first place that acronym shows up in this thread is in Reality Check’s post #103. Is EDT somehow related to EHD?

Whoops - I got that wrong, it is the EHD Model of Tornadoes.

[Reality Check]

I'm basing my work on the existing data. ...wall of text snipped...

We know this. It is standard atmospheric science that tornadoes have EM fields and temperatures.
It looks like EM and temperature profiles of tornadoes are measured.
We know that you have a EHD Model of Tornadoes. The problem is that the word model implies that you can match the observations. Thus my question about whether your model can match the observations. The answer is either no (in which case you have an idea rather than a model) or yes.

[CharlesChandler]

I think that the whole issue comes down to what you consider to be a valid "observation". I (and others) have "observed" that tornadoes are narrowest at their bases. This is something that my [idea-or-model] can explain, and while this can be easily described numerically, to my knowledge no one has ever identified the energy sources responsible for this "observation". But if you reject the observation, then for you, I have just an idea, and not such a good one at that!

[Shaula]

One question - can you provide some links to physics references for bottleneck vortices? If you google it (that precise term) you get about 15 results, most of them linked to you. Are they normally known by another name? Was just going to check what current models said about them as they seem to be so critical to your hypothesis. As far as I can see they are normally just modelled as a central rotational and surrounding irrotational vortex?

[CharlesChandler]

I wish that there was a more apropos term in common usage. I know it's a well-studied phenomenon, but I can't recall seeing a specific term just for this kind of flow.

In meteorology, numeric modeling literature refers to them as "tornado-like vortexes". But if you're not familiar with that literature, for me to describe a tornado as a "tornado-like vortex" wouldn't give you much information. BTW, in order to understand that literature, you have to know the pretext -- they're just looking for the cheapest algorithm that produces the most tornado-like flow. Energy sources are not discussed, and the actual nature of the flows might vary dramatically from the real thing, depending on how accurate the project required the simulation to be. The hardest part in numeric modeling is getting the sharp corner at the mouth of the vortex. In a normal vacuum vortex, the air morphs continuously from a spiraling inflow to a helical upward motion. In a tornado, the air makes a sharp turn at the mouth of the vortex, which takes heavy-handed coding to simulate. So you'll see a lot of talk about the "corner regime", which is about the way that sharp angle is treated numerically.

In fluid dynamics, this is a special case of the Venturi effect, bounded by the choked flow condition. (A choked flow occurs when a further decrease in pressure, downstream of the bottleneck, does not result in a faster flow through the bottleneck. This is because skin friction at the bottleneck increases with the square of the velocity. Hence in the initial pressure drop, there is a corresponding increase in velocity, but continued reduction in pressure results in smaller increases in velocity, as the skin friction increases exponentially. The absolute limit for a choked flow is the speed of sound, since supersonic flows motivated by low pressures are not possible.)

I'll keep poking around. If I can't find a better term, and the way I'm using "bottleneck" is actually a bit of a coinage, at the very least I need to introduce it as such. And I definitely need to locate the most concise statements of the essential principles. Some of it comes from an understanding of the Venturi effect, but there's also a vortex there, which introduces another cluster of properties, and the whole thing is a combination of all of these factors. If I can find all of this in one place, I'll let you know.

[Shaula]

Be good to see a reference - I was assuming that these sorts of vortices had specific properties that had been fully worked out and that you were using these as the basis for your model.