'12-04-03, 22:03 Charles Chandler	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. (See Figure 1.) Tornado in Mulvane, KS, 2004-06-12 Figure 1. Tornado in Mulvane, KS, 2004-06-12, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation. The tight radius at the ground is not just how we distinguish tornadoes from other types of vortexes. The concentration of energy at the ground is what makes tornadoes so destructive. In spite of skin friction, air moving along the ground in response to the extreme low pressure achieves its greatest speeds entering the vortex, and the revolution rate as well as the angular velocity relax with altitude. If the tightest radius and fastest air speeds were at the source of the low pressure inside the cloud, damage on the ground would be far less. So understanding the destructive power of a tornado necessitates identifying the force that constricts the radius at the ground. In rough terms, a tornado can be considered a vacuum vortex, with a flow field motivated by the low pressure in the cloud above. But the extreme low pressure at the ground, away from the source of the low pressure in the cloud, is unexpected in an open thermodynamic system. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and if entropy always increases with distance from the source of the energy, the lowest pressure in any open-air vacuum vortex must always be at the source of the low pressure, which would be inside the cloud. There shouldn't be a way of getting an extreme low pressure away from the source of the low pressure, nor should air speeds be the fastest where the friction is the greatest (i.e., on the ground). Hence fluid dynamic principles do not allow the inverted funnel shape in a open system. Therefore, a tornado is some sort of closed system, in which one or more non-fluid dynamic forces have modulated the flow field. The only "non-fluid dynamic forces" in the atmosphere (and especially in thunderstorms) are electromagnetic. So while the vacuum vortex is caused by fluid dynamic factors (i.e., the low pressure inside the cloud), the constriction of the radius at the ground can only be due to EM factors, as they are the only other physical forces present. For EM factors to influence the behavior of air in a fluid dynamic vortex, they (obviously) have to be capable of exerting forces on the air. Since air is only infinitesimally responsive to the magnetic force, it can be confidently ruled out. Hence the constriction of the radius at the bottom can only be due to the electric force. We can also say with absolute certainty that for the electric force to alter the behavior of the air, the air has to be charged. Because the tornadic inflow is clear, we know that it is free of water aerosols and rain drops. Relative humidity readings in the air are typically ~20%, meaning that the water content is less than .2% by volume. Liquid and solid water particles are the primary negative charge carriers in the storm, while the gaseous nitrogen and oxygen molecules are not good at hosting net negative charges. Hence the absence of liquid or solid water particles in the tornadic inflow suggests that any substantial space charge would have to be positive, not negative. This will be confirmed by other means later, but it is more straightforward to identify the sign of the space charge when first acknowledging that the air is, in fact, charged. All other factors being the same, there are many ways that a space charge could influence the behavior of a gas, but we can limit the solution domain to only one possibility if we stick closely to definitions. We know that we are attempting to explain the constriction of the radius of a vacuum vortex, away from the source of the low pressure, with the fastest air speeds where friction is the greatest (i.e., on the ground). While such is impossible in an open thermodynamic system, these are the defining characteristics of a bottleneck flow in a closed system. (See Figure 2.) Bottleneck Vortex Figure 2. A fluid pulled through a bottleneck has its fastest speed and lowest pressure at the bottleneck. The air flows the fastest through the bottleneck, as the same volume of air has to move at a greater speed to get through a smaller aperture. In an ideal gas, with no friction, there would be no pressure gradient. But skin friction at the bottleneck increases with the square of the velocity, and this impedes the flow of air. Once past the bottleneck, the air accelerates rapidly, leaving an extreme low pressure at the bottleneck. Then the low pressure relaxes as the air approaches the source of the low pressure. Demonstrations of such behaviors use an apparatus similar to that in Figure 3. Vortex Apparatus Figure 3. An apparatus that creates a bottleneck vortex. Figure 4 shows the results at different "swirl ratios" (i.e., the angular velocity divided by the vertical velocity). In the 1st panel, slight angular velocity enables a narrow vortex that stays organized. In the 2nd panel, with a larger swirl ratio, we see a phenomenon known as "vortex breakdown." Rotating rapidly while surrounded by stationary air, the vortex is subjected to friction, which begets turbulence. This allows the surrounding air, which lacks centrifugal force (because it is not rotating), to flow into the vortex. Once inside, it seeks the extreme low pressure at the base. A "downdraft" inside the vortex relieves the low pressure, and thereby reduces the centripetal force. This results in the rapid widening of the vortex just prior to its breakdown. Note that even in tightly-controlled conditions, this configuration is extremely unstable. In the 3rd panel, with an even higher swirl ratio, vortex breakdown occurs at soon as the air exits the hole. And in the 4th panel, the turbulence is so robust that it shrouds the vortex. Vacuum Vortexes Figure 4. Laboratory demonstration of laminar and turbulent vortexes, courtesy C. R. Church. All of these distinctive forms have been observed in tornadoes. Bottleneck Vortex Comparison 1 Figure 5. Vortex breakdown midway through the vortex. Note the evaporation as the low pressure relaxes in the direction of the flow. Bottleneck Vortex Comparison 2 Figure 6. Vortex breakdown just above the boundary. Bottleneck Vortex Comparison 3 Figure 7. Vortex breakdown shrouded by turbulence that it created. So the laboratory research demonstrated that vortex breakdown can only occur if the low pressure is relaxing in the direction of the flow, and that the fastest air speeds occur at the lower boundary, not in spite of skin friction, but because of it, as this is what creates the bottleneck. The researchers successfully recreated all of the distinctive tornadic forms, but they failed to demonstrate how the properties of bottleneck vortexes were relevant to the study of tornadoes, which are assumed to be open systems, incapable of bottleneck flows. The reason is that in the 1970s, they did not have the EM data and the EHD principles necessary to understand how the electric force could introduce closed-system properties into an atmospheric vortex. This can now be accomplished. We have already acknowledged that the tornadic inflow is charged, and that this somehow results in the constriction of the radius at the ground. We have seen that in a bottleneck flow, the constriction comes from skin friction at the bottleneck. So we know that for charged air to create a bottleneck flow, somehow it has to accentuate skin friction. If the air is charged, it will induce an opposite charge in the ground, resulting in an attractive force. With the air pulled down to the ground, skin friction then impedes the flow, producing the bottleneck. Open & Closed Vortexes Figure 8. Vortexes, open & closed. We only need one more piece to have a complete description of the phenomenon. In the laboratory apparatus, the air encountered skin friction as it moved toward and through the lower aperture. In a tornado, the air encounters skin friction as it moves along the ground. But we need an "aperture" in which the inflow is released from its attraction to the ground otherwise, the air would simply cling to the ground, and the low pressure aloft would get its air from elsewhere. The properties of this "aperture" can be deduced with confidence. There is no changing the conductivity of the Earth, which supports an induced charge if exposed to charged air. So the only way to release the air from its attraction to the ground is to neutralize its charge. To neutralize a space charge, we need an equal supply of the opposite charge. We previously identified the sign of the space charge as positive. So we need a supply of electrons to neutralize the positive charge in the tornadic inflow. There are two possible sources of electrons, and there is evidence that both are active electron donors. The first is the Earth itself. But it is not a flow of free electrons out of the Earth. Very few of the molecules in the tornadic inflow actually come into contact with the ground. Those get neutralized, but the neutralizing electrons do not spread readily through the low conductivity of the air. The most effective charge neutralization comes from charged dust that is lofted by the electric force into the tornadic inflow. This produces a mixture of positive and negative ions, where the charges haven't actually recombined, but the electric force binding the air to the ground is effectively neutralized, because the mixture is net neutral. The other electron donor is the massive negative charge region inside the storm, and somewhat surprisingly, this appears to be the more reliable source of electrons. The reduced pressure inside the vortex lowers the electrical resistance, thereby enabling a faster Townsend avalanche. The electrons can also flow faster through condensed water in the vortex wall than they can through the clear air at the ground. The electron drift within tornadoes has been confirmed by the magnetic field that it generates, by radio frequency interference, and in extreme cases, by glow discharges within the vortex. All of the data indicate that the current density is in the range of 100~250 amps.1,2,3,4 So the tornadic inflow is positively charged, hence it induces a negative charge in the Earth, and is thereafter attracted to the Earth, until the charges are neutralized, near or inside the vortex, at which time the air is free to ascend. Thus the electric force, and the neutralization thereof, instantiate a bottleneck vortex in the atmosphere. Tornadic Potential Figure 9. Tornadic potential energy is the product of the electric force holding the air down, when it would have curved upward in response to the low pressure aloft. References 1. Winn, W. P.; Hunyady, S. J.; Aulich, G. D., 2000: Electric field at the ground in a large tornado. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(D15): 20145-20153 2. Brook, M., 1967: Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity. Science, 157(3795): 1434-1436 3. Watkins, D. C.; Cobine, J. D.; Vonnegut, B., 1978: Electric Discharges Inside Tornadoes. Science, 199: 171-174 4. Berson, F. A.; Power, H., 1972: On the geo-electromagnetic aspects of tornado initiation. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 101(1): 221-230
'12-04-03, 23:50 Cuddles	Charles Chandler wrote: The defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. Care to provide any support for this claim? Because that's not how the American Meteorological Society defines a tornado. A tornado is simply any violently rotating (> 18ms-1) column of air that is in contact with both the ground and a cloud. While they mostly take a funnel shape, that is certainly not necessary, and cylindrical tornadoes can occur. The tight radius at the ground is not just how we distinguish tornadoes from other types of vortexes. See above. If your claims depends on the assumption that tornadoes are different from other vortices just because of the shape of the vortex, it seems you fall at the first hurdle before we even need to bother looking at things in any more detail since you're basing everything on a false assumption. Incidentally, before anyone starts discussing this, note that it appears to be little more than a repeat of this thread from three years ago. Note in particular that there still appears to be exactly no maths involved anywhere, it's still just pretty pictures and unsupported claims.
'12-04-04, 00:33 Dancing David	Charles Chandler wrote: The defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. Defined by who , where, and when?
'12-04-04, 01:31 Captain_Swoop	Charles already has a thread on this over on BAUT. http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....l-of-Tornadoes and one on an EHD Model of Mirages and one on an EHD Model of Dust Devils.
'12-04-04, 01:37 Charles Chandler	Cuddles wrote: If your claims depends on the assumption that tornadoes are different from other vortices just because of the shape of the vortex, it seems you fall at the first hurdle before we even need to bother looking at things in any more detail since you're basing everything on a false assumption. This is not a false assumption. It is true that some tornadoes tend toward the "stovepipe" shape, in which the radius does not appear to increase much with altitude. But if you look carefully, the tightest radius (if only by a little bit) is still at the ground. Open-air vacuum vortexes do the opposite — they flare out at the bottom. The difference is non-trivial. The principle issue is not the shape per se, but rather, the pressure gradient (though the shape is a direct result of the centripetal forces, which come directly from the pressure gradient). The enigma is that a tornado develops an extreme low pressure, away from the source of the low pressure. A vortex like this has never been reproduced in any open-system laboratory demonstration, and by the principles of fluid dynamics, it shouldn't be possible in any open system. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and if entropy always increases with distance from the source of the energy, the tightest radius in any vacuum vortex must always be at the source of the low pressure. Yet in tornadoes, the lowest pressure is the furthest from the source of the low pressure, and the fastest speeds occur where the friction is the greatest. And this is what gives tornadoes their destructive power. Cuddles wrote: Incidentally, before anyone starts discussing this, note that it appears to be little more than a repeat of this thread from three years ago. Note in particular that there still appears to be exactly no maths involved anywhere, it's still just pretty pictures and unsupported claims. I've done a lot of work in the last three years. Let's run the numbers for an EF1 tornado (with 40~50 m/s winds). Since these are far and away the most common, the data are more reliable. In the OP I noted that the current within the tornado is in the range of 100~250 amps.1,2,3,4 We'll use the lower number. By atmospheric standards, 100 amps is actually a lot of current. The current in a lightning strike can exceed 10,000 amps, but only for a thousandth of a second. If there was 1 strike every second, that would be an average of 10 amps. At one strike every 30 seconds, we have only .3 amps, and 100 amps sounds like a big number. I'll demonstrate later that a small tornado would be possible with as little as 1 amp. But for now, since the literature says it's 100 amps, we'll go with that. While the tornado is active, the lightning strike rate falls to near zero,5,6,7,8 suggesting that the tornado is draining the charge that otherwise would have produced lightning. The area experiencing the lightning deficit due to the tornado is typically 10 km2, which is the size of the supercell itself. The total charge in a supercell has been estimated at 100,000 Coulombs.2 100 amps equals 100 Coulombs per second. At that rate, it would take 1,000 seconds to drain all of the charge out of the cloud. That's 17 minutes, which is the typical duration of a tornado. When viewed from another angle, 100 amps seems like too weak of a current to do anything at all. An EF1 tornado expends approximately 5 MW of power on the ground. 100 amps is not directly responsible for that power. But the significance of the current is not that all of it is thermalized, thereby generating all of the power spent on the ground. In fact, only a vanishingly small amount of thermalization occurs near the ground at the point of charge recombination. Rather, the current releases the tornadic inflow from its attraction to the ground. In other words, it provides the hole that enables the continuous flow through the bottleneck. The bulk of the power expended on the ground is just an artifact of the buoyancy of the air inside the vortex. There, the 100 amps does have a thermal significance. If the tornado is 300 m tall, and if the electric field is 5 kV/m,1,9,10 we can then estimate the resistive heating from the current flowing through the tornado. volts = 300 m 5,000 V/m = 1,500,000 V watts = amps volts = 100 1,500,000 = 150,000,000 W 150 MW of resistive heating inside the vortex is the primary source of buoyancy, and is roughly twice the power of latent heating from condensation inside the tornado. The 5 MW that is lost to skin friction at the ground is small by comparison. Given the current density, and assuming that the current is neutralizing the space charge in the tornadic inflow, if we know the charge density of the air, we can calculate how much charged air would have to be flowing into the tornado to absorb all of that current. Previous research estimated the number of charged particles in the tornadic inflow to be one part per billion (2.14  1014 charged particles/m3), and the charge per particle to be 3.2  10−17 C.11 space charge = 2.14  1014 3.2  10−17 = 6.8  10−3 C/m3 The result is realistic, but the researchers assumed that the charges would be borne by microscopic aerosols ( 0.02 m), which as noted in the OP does not agree with the typical relative humidity readings. If we assume that the charged particles are all molecular ions missing only one electron, a reasonable estimate would be one part per million. molecules in a cubic meter of air = 1  1023 one charged molecule per million = 1  1017 ions/m3 1 coulomb = 1.6  1019 electrons space charge = (1  1017 ions/m3) / (1.6  1019 electrons/coulomb) = 6.25  10−3 C/m3 So this way, we get 6.25  10−3 C/m3, which agrees with the estimate of 6.8  10−3 C/m3 from previous research. So let's see how much air, at that charge density, it would take to absorb 100 amps of current. at 6.25  10−3 C/m3, 1 coulomb = 1 / 6.25  10−3 m3 = 160 m3 1 amp = 1 coulomb / second current = 100 amps = 100 C/s = 100 160 m3/s = 16,000 m3/s With that as the volume, we can then determine the horizontal velocity of the inflow. depth of inflow layer = 1 m circumference of tornado 100 m wide = 314 m cylindrical surface of vortex mouth = 314 m2 velocity of inflow = 16,000 m3/s / 314 m2 = 50.96 m/s 50.96 m/s is just barely into the EF2 range, which would seem appropriate for an electric current at the low end of the 100~250 amp estimates. The current could actually be a lot less, if the space charge was less. If the air is clinging to the ground because of an electrostatic attraction, but picking up 5 MW of thermalized skin friction, we know that the minimum amount of charge to maintain this configuration will be the charge that can keep the air clinging to the ground, despite the buoyancy that results from 5 MW of heat. First we'll consider the force of the electric field that is pulling the air toward the ground. electric field = 5 kV/m newtons = coulombs electric field = 6.25  10−3 5,000 = 31.25 N/m3 Next we'll assume an inflow rate of 1,000 m3/s for an EF1, and apply 5 MW of heat to it, and see what that does to the temperature. Raising the temperature of 1 m3 of air by 1 C in 1 second requires approximately 1,340 watts. watts per m3 of air = 5 MW / 1,000 m3/s = 5,000 W/m3/s temperature difference = 5,000 W/m3/s / 1,340 W/C/m3/s = 3.73 C From the temperature difference, we can calculate the buoyancy. mass of air at STP = 1.2 kg/m3 newtons = kilograms / 0.101971621 gravitational force at STP = 1.2 / 0.101971621 = 11.77 N/m3 standard temperature = 15.6 C = 288.75 K after frictional heating = 288.75 K + 3.73 = 292.48 K temperature ratio = 288.75 / 292.48 = 0.987246991 gravitational force after heating = 11.77 N/m3 0.987246991 = 11.62 N/m3 buoyancy = 11.77 N/m3 − 11.62 N/m3 = 0.15 N/m3 With a downward electric force of 31.25 N/m3, and an upward buoyancy of only 0.15 N/m3, that's 208 times more electric force than buoyancy. With 2 orders of magnitude less electric force, the air would still stay near the ground until the electric charges are neutralized. So we'll consider 6.25  10−5 C/m3 to be the minimum space charge necessary to hold the air down as it is heated by friction. That's only 1 part per 100 million, and which will only take 1 amp of current to neutralize. And that's easily within range, even for a moderate thunderstorm. References 1. Winn, W. P.; Hunyady, S. J.; Aulich, G. D., 2000: Electric field at the ground in a large tornado. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(D15): 20145-20153 2. Brook, M., 1967: Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity. Science, 157(3795): 1434-1436 3. Watkins, D. C.; Cobine, J. D.; Vonnegut, B., 1978: Electric Discharges Inside Tornadoes. Science, 199: 171-174 4. Berson, F. A.; Power, H., 1972: On the geo-electromagnetic aspects of tornado initiation. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 101(1): 221-230 5. Buechler, D. E.; Driscoll, K. T.; Goodman, S. J.; Christian, H. J., 2000: Lightning activity within a tornadic thunderstorm observed by the optical transient detector (OTD). Geophysical Research Letters, 27(15): 2253-2256 6. Murphy, M. J.; Demetriades, N. W., 2005: An analysis of lightning holes in a DFW supercell storm using total lightning and radar information. Conference on Meteorological Applications of Lightning Data, 2.3 7. Steiger, S. M.; Orville, R. E.; Carey, L. D., 2007: Total Lightning Signatures of Thunderstorm Intensity over North Texas. Part I: Supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 135: 3281-3302 8. Trostel, J. M.; Matthews, J., 2010: Application of an Improved SCIT Algorithm to Investigate Lightning Characteristics of a Tornado Outbreak in Georgia. 26th Conference on Interactive Information and Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology 9. Freier, G. D., 1959: The Earth's Electric Field during a Tornado. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 16(3): 333-334 10. Gunn, R., 1956: Electric field intensity at the ground under active thunderstorms and tornadoes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 13: 269-273 11. Dehel, T. F.; Dickinson, M.; Lorge, F.; Startzel, R., Jr., 2007: Electric field and Lorentz force contribution to atmospheric vortex phenomena. Journal of Electrostatics, 65(1011): 631-638
'12-04-04, 01:45 Charles Chandler	Captain_Swoop wrote: Charles already has a thread on this over on BAUT, and one on an EHD Model of Mirages and one on an EHD Model of Dust Devils. Hey Capt — I accidentally broke the rules over there, running more than one ATM thread at a time. Ooops. Anyway, the tornado thread has died down, and I want all the feedback I can get, so here I am.
'12-04-04, 02:05 Farsight	Charles: read this: On Vortex Particles by David Saint John. It doesn't support your case directly, but it might give you some useful insight as to chirality and charge. Also try out Falaco solitons.
'12-04-04, 05:14 Dancing David	Charles Chandler wrote: This is not a false assumption. It is true that some tornadoes tend toward the "stovepipe" shape, in which the radius does not appear to increase much with altitude. But if you look carefully, the tightest radius (if only by a little bit) is still at the ground. Assert you conclusion much, or just most of the time?
'12-04-04, 07:08 Charles Chandler	Here are examples of open-air vortexes. Note that wide-mouth vortexes emerge out of the turbulence at the lower boundaries, and that the vortexes tighten with proximity to the source of the low pressure. Suction vortex, courtesy Spiegel Online. Suction vortex, courtesy American Educational Products. Suction vortex, courtesy Holoscience. Suction vortex, courtesy Ned Kahn. Suction vortex, courtesy Michael Ellestad. Now here are some tornadoes. Note that they are well-organized at the base, and that the radius is tightest on the ground. They expand in the direction of the flow. Tornado in Big Spring, NE, 2004-06-10, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation. F3 tornado in Mulvane, KS, 2004-06-12, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation. Tornado in Miami, FL, 1997-05-12, courtesy The Miami Herald. Tornado in Union City, OK, 1973-05-24, courtesy NOAA Photo Library. Wedge tornado (1 km wide at base) in Jordan, IA, 1976-06-13, courtesy Iowa State University. Tornado near Bandar Lengeh, Iran, 2008-11-23, courtesy YouTube. Waterspout near Oran, Algeria, 2007-10-30, courtesy Nassimatique. Waterspout off the coast of Brach, Croatia, 2006-08-04, courtesy D. J. Malden. Tornado that did F5 damage in Elie, Manitoba, 2007-06-22, courtesy Justin Hobson. Tornado that did F4 damage in Manchester, SD, 2003-06-24, courtesy Matt Grzych. The difference in the flow fields is summarized in this image. It's common knowledge in the meteorological community that the lowest pressure in a tornado is at the base, and that it provides the centripetal force necessary to tighten the radius as is observed. So this isn't my "theory". These are the data that need to be explained.
'12-04-04, 08:24 Dancing David	Hi, A few picture does not demonstrate your idea, now does it? You made a categorical claim. take a look here: http://home.grandecom.net/~claire/Dover.html Now here is the deal, look at the foruth and fifth pictures. Notice something? You can't see the voxtex where it touces the groud, in the fourth picture you can see debris moving. But you can't see the vortex itself. You can not rely on the visible water vapor to say where teh vortex is.
'12-04-04, 08:28 GeeMack	Dancing David wrote: Hi, A few picture does not demonstrate your idea, now does it? You made a categorical claim. It wouldn't be the first time someone claimed to see something in a picture so that by golly makes a pseudoscience fantasy into reality. And it likely won't be the last.
'12-04-04, 11:55 Reality Check	Charles Chandler wrote: The defining characteristic of a tornadic vortex is that the tightest radius is on the ground. ...pretty picture links and unsupported assertions snipped... As noted by previous posters that is not a defining characteristic of a "tornadic vortex". Tornadoes come in many shapes which are described as funnel (the majority) , rope, stovepipe, wedge, etc. The rest of your post (and this thread) is mostly a repeat of the pretty pictures and assertions that you posted 3 years ago to which I replied: Reality Check wrote: Your idea is all pretty pictures and descriptions. You do not any mathematics, physics or experimental data to back it up. It is wrong There is no way to form your charged double layers in the structure that you want. The vertical charge separations hypothesized to cause lightning do not apply here (no ice crystals and soft ice to form graupel). You have no horizontal mechanism. If they did exist then they would destroy themselves in the "turbulence of the anvil" (your words) or the laminar flow (your words) elsewhere since you have no mechanism to keep the charges separated. If they did exist then they would immediately ground themselves from the bottom of the storm since there is no mechanism to stop this. If they did exist then they would be easy to detect, e.g. St. Elmo's fire large static interferences with ground instruments lightning haven't aircraft been flown through thunderstorms with scientific instruments? ALTUS Cumulus Electrification Study
'12-04-04, 19:37 Charles Chandler	Dancing David wrote: A few picture does not demonstrate your idea, now does it? You made a categorical claim. Indeed, an instance does not prove a generalization. Only an exception can disprove a generalization. Since there are no known exceptions, the generalization is commonly accepted. To disagree, you have to provide an exception. Dancing David wrote: You can't see the voxtex where it touces the groud, in the fourth picture you can see debris moving. But you can't see the vortex itself. You can not rely on the visible water vapor to say where teh vortex is. The visibility of the vortex (or lack thereof) doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not the tightest radius was at the ground. If you are going to defeat the generalization that the tightest radius in a tornado is at the ground, you can't just cite an example where it's hard to tell. GeeMack wrote: It wouldn't be the first time someone claimed to see something in a picture so that by golly makes a pseudoscience fantasy into reality. And it likely won't be the last. What is your scientific assessment of the work that I'm doing? Reality Check wrote: As noted by previous posters that is not a defining characteristic of a "tornadic vortex". Tornadoes come in many shapes which are described as funnel (the majority) , rope, stovepipe, wedge, etc. If you are going to defeat the generalization that the tightest radius in a tornado is at the ground, you can't just say that tornadoes come in many shapes. You have to find one shape that is wider at the ground. Reality Check wrote: Your idea is all pretty pictures and descriptions. You do not any mathematics, physics or experimental data to back it up. What is your assessment of the calculations in post #5? Reality Check wrote: There is no way to form your charged double layers in the structure that you want. Prove that. Reality Check wrote: The vertical charge separations hypothesized to cause lightning do not apply here (no ice crystals and soft ice to form graupel). I don't understand the relevance of this statement. What does this have to do with what I'm saying? Reality Check wrote: You have no horizontal mechanism. What sort of "horizontal mechanism" would I need? There is an extreme low pressure at the base of the vortex, and this pulls air horizontally inward. But I'm not sure that I'm answering the question that was asked. Reality Check wrote: If they did exist then they would destroy themselves in the "turbulence of the anvil" (your words) or the laminar flow (your words) elsewhere since you have no mechanism to keep the charges separated. The charge separation in a storm in preserved (at least for the life of the storm) by electrical and aerodynamic resistance. I'm not sure what charge separations you think I'm asserting that would not be kept separate by these standard mechanisms. Reality Check wrote: If they did exist then they would immediately ground themselves from the bottom of the storm since there is no mechanism to stop this. Ibid. Reality Check wrote: If they did exist then they would be easy to detect (e.g. St. Elmo's fire, large static interferences with ground instruments). Yes. Reality Check wrote: e.g., lightning No. There is a sharp reduction in the lightning strike rate during the tornadic phase. This inverse relationship proves that the two are related. If a Townsend avalanche inside the tornado is draining the charges that would have built up to the potential for lightning, the evidence of an electric current inside the tornado makes sense, and so does the absence of lightning. Reality Check wrote: Haven't aircraft been flown through thunderstorms with scientific instruments? Yes, but not through mesocyclones, much less tornadoes. So all of the data that we have are from the outside.
'12-04-05, 00:31 Dancing David	Charles Chandler wrote: The visibility of the vortex (or lack thereof) doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not the tightest radius was at the ground. If you are going to defeat the generalization that the tightest radius in a tornado is at the ground, you can't just cite an example where it's hard to tell. It does when your support for the claim is just photos of the visible portion of the tornado in photos. Do you like being suspended from your own petard? "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard" Lets see your support for this notions is photos, which do not show the actual delineations of the vortex. Therefore: you have used a specious form of reasoning to support your conclusion, as you can not see the actual dimensions of the vortex in the photos. Ta daa!
'12-04-05, 02:05 Cuddles	Charles Chandler wrote: This is not a false assumption. It is true that some tornadoes tend toward the "stovepipe" shape, in which the radius does not appear to increase much with altitude. But if you look carefully, the tightest radius (if only by a little bit) is still at the ground. Open-air vacuum vortexes do the opposite — they flare out at the bottom. The difference is non-trivial. The principle issue is not the shape per se, but rather, the pressure gradient (though the shape is a direct result of the centripetal forces, which come directly from the pressure gradient). The enigma is that a tornado develops an extreme low pressure, away from the source of the low pressure. A vortex like this has never been reproduced in any open-system laboratory demonstration, and by the principles of fluid dynamics, it shouldn't be possible in any open system. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and if entropy always increases with distance from the source of the energy, the tightest radius in any vacuum vortex must always be at the source of the low pressure. Yet in tornadoes, the lowest pressure is the furthest from the source of the low pressure, and the fastest speeds occur where the friction is the greatest. And this is what gives tornadoes their destructive power. So no, you don't have any evidence to back up your claim, it's just something you've made up based solely on looking at pictures and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual definition of tornadoes. That, in an attempt to defend yourself, you then go on to explicitly note that you can't see the actual vortex in pictures anyway just makes the whole thing even sillier. I'm rather reminded of the recently departed Michael Mozina, whose entire argument consisted of "I think these pictures look a bit like something, therefore everyone who deals with actual facts, definitions, maths and physics must be wrong". Given that the rest of your claims are based on this false assumption, there appears to be little point in addressing them. Charles Chandler wrote: This inverse relationship proves that the two are related. No it doesn't.
'12-04-05, 04:17 Charles Chandler	I have to insist that in fluid dynamics, the radius of a vortex is defined by the balance of the centrifugal and centripetal forces. Once air enters the vortex, it has already been accelerated to its maximum speed, and its tangential velocity does not change (excepting a slight decrease over time due to friction with the surrounding air). With a constant tangential velocity, the only thing that can alter the radius of the vortex is a change in the centripetal force. The centrifugal force in a vacuum vortex is (obviously) coming from the pressure deficit. Hence the radius of the vortex is a direct index of the pressure inside. I will further maintain that in fluid dynamics, photography and videography are legitimate methods of capturing information on a flow field. In the atmosphere, conclusions can be drawn when particulate matter (condensation and/or dust) is present. If particulate matter is not present, conclusions cannot be made. Further still, in all of the cases in which particulate matter revealed the flow field, and the photography and/or videography was of sufficient quality, the conclusions have always been that the tightest radius in a tornado is at the ground. For these reasons, the generalization that the lowest pressure in a tornado is at the ground is commonly acknowledged. To contradict this generalization, examples in which the flow field is difficult to see do not suffice. You have to provide an instance in which the radius is wider at the ground. As an analogy, if I asserted that all cars are red, and you showed me a photograph of a car in which it was difficult to tell what color it was, that photograph would not disprove my assertion. You could say that this photograph does not support my generalization, which would be true. But it would not falsify it either. Only a photograph of a car clearly showing a color other than red would falsify my generalization. Now, if I say that all photographs of cars prove that all cars are red, and if you show me a photograph of a car taken at night, when the color could not be discerned, the generalization that all photographs prove that all cars are red would be proven false. But if I did not stipulate that all photographs would support the generalization, then it still stands. As concerns tornadoes, I didn't say that all photographs of tornadoes prove that the narrowest radius is at the ground. I said that in all tornadoes, the narrowest radius is at the ground, and I further maintain that if particulate matter is suspended in the air, thereby revealing the flow field, and if the photography and/or videography is of sufficient quality, what you'll see is that the narrowest radius is at the ground. Argue with that and you'll prove that you're arguing just to be argumentative, which is what I suspect. You seem to be mighty proud of yourselves too, I might add. But sophistry is a cheap trick, and it's no match for rigorous reasoning.
'12-04-05, 04:23 GeeMack	Charles Chandler wrote: I have to insist that in fluid dynamics, the radius of a vortex is defined by the balance of the centrifugal and centripetal forces. Once air enters the vortex, it has already been accelerated to its maximum speed, and its tangential velocity does not change (excepting a slight decrease over time due to friction with the surrounding air). With a constant tangential velocity, the only thing that can alter the radius of the vortex is a change in the centripetal force. The centrifugal force in a vacuum vortex is (obviously) coming from the pressure deficit. Hence the radius of the vortex is a direct index of the pressure inside. I will further maintain that in fluid dynamics, photography and videography are legitimate methods of capturing information on a flow field. In the atmosphere, conclusions can be drawn when particulate matter (condensation and/or dust) is present. If particulate matter is not present, conclusions cannot be made. Further still, in all of the cases in which particulate matter revealed the flow field, and the photography and/or videography was of sufficient quality, the conclusions have always been that the tightest radius in a tornado is at the ground. For these reasons, the generalization that the lowest pressure in a tornado is at the ground is commonly acknowledged. To contradict this generalization, examples in which the flow field is difficult to see do not suffice. You have to provide an instance in which the radius is wider at the ground. As an analogy, if I asserted that all cars are red, and you showed me a photograph of a car in which it was difficult to tell what color it was, that photograph would not disprove my assertion. You could say that this photograph does not support my generalization, which would be true. But it would not falsify it either. Only a photograph of a car clearly showing a color other than red would falsify my generalization. Now, if I say that all photographs of cars prove that all cars are red, and if you show me a photograph of a car taken at night, when the color could not be discerned, the generalization that all photographs prove that all cars are red would be proven false. But if I did not stipulate that all photographs would support the generalization, then it still stands. As concerns tornadoes, I didn't say that all photographs of tornadoes prove that the narrowest radius is at the ground. I said that in all tornadoes, the narrowest radius is at the ground, and I further maintain that if particulate matter is suspended in the air, thereby revealing the flow field, and if the photography and/or videography is of sufficient quality, what you'll see is that the narrowest radius is at the ground. Argue with that and you'll prove that you're arguing just to be argumentative, which is what I suspect. You seem to be mighty proud of yourselves too, I might add. But sophistry is a cheap trick, and it's no match for rigorous reasoning. So looks-like-a-bunny pseudoscience it is. And that feigned righteous indignation? Nice touch.
'12-04-09, 11:45 Reality Check	Charles Chandler wrote: I have to insist that in fluid dynamics, ... We have to insist that rather than posting blocks of text about fluid dynamics, you actually provide evidence for your "EHD Model of Tornadoes" other than wishful thinking and pretty pictures of tornadoes. And you are wrong : Google "cylindrical tornado image" and you will find pictures of tornadoes where there is no "narrowest" radius!
'12-04-09, 13:08 Captain_Swoop	Reality Check wrote: We have to insist that rather than posting blocks of text about fluid dynamics, you actually provide evidence for your "EHD Model of Tornadoes" other than wishful thinking and pretty pictures of tornadoes. And you are wrong : Google "cylindrical tornado image" and you will find pictures of tornadoes where there is no "narrowest" radius! Well, obviously they aren't the 'EHD' ones, they are the ones that the Mainstream Model applies to. See I can do this as well