home
 
 
 
Tornado Theory
© Charles Chandler
 
Page: 1  2 
'10-10-06, 07:01
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
This thread is for discussion of the paper entitled "The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms" on charles-chandler.org.
 
Other bulletin board discussions of this topic include:
Please note that the theory has matured since the discussions on those boards first began, mainly of course because of the discussion on those boards. So many of the comments are no longer relevant. And not all of the discussions were well-focused. But this nevertheless provides a glimpse at what other people are saying about this work (usually not so complimentary, but whatever!).
 
To pick up where the last thread left off, the following is the last post on the charles-chandler.org bulletin board, which was my response to Kceovaisnt's request for the design of an experiment to test the hypothesis in question.
'10-10-06, 07:42
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
OK, it took more than a couple of days, but here is the design for the apparatus that could be used to test the tornado hypothesis:
 
 
My biggest questions concern how to develop the degree of ionization necessary to simulate the real environment. The target should be 5 kV between the positively-charged air at the bottom and the negatively-charged electrodes at the top. Where the charges meet in the middle, everything should get totally neutralized. My understanding of Cockroft-Walton multiplier circuits in action is that after an hour or so, in an average sized room, you're likely to see 1 part per million that's charged, assuming that you've got a fan blowing over the electrodes. But this apparatus can't recycle partially-charged air to increase the charge, since the charge is supposed to get totally neutralized inside the vortex. So it needs to develop 5 kV in the air, and get the charge well distributed within the air, so that an even body force develops due to the potentials, and it has to develop that kind of charge in just one pass through the duct(s). So if my suspicions are correct, it might take a more elaborate apparatus just to get highly-charged air out of the bottom platform.
 
The negatively-charged electrodes at the top of the apparatus have to develop the same potential, but it doesn't have to be distributed as a space charge — it just has to create a supply of electrons that can fly off the electrodes and follow the low pressure, high conductivity path through the vortex to the bottom. Still, I don't know how to develop 5 kV at those electrodes, unless I can just solder leads onto the same kind of multiplier circuits that are proposed for the bottom platform that develops the positive ions.
 
Anyway, have a look, and don't scratch your head too much — if something isn't clearly explained, just ask.
'12-04-02, 13:21
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
A discussion succeeding this one is going at cosmoquest.org, so I'm locking this thread, and comments should be posted there.
'12-09-18, 03:26
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
The BAUT discussion went about the way they usually do. If you disagree with the mainstream, you're wrong, because you're disagreeing with the mainstream. Oh well. So I'm re-opening this thread for ongoing discussions here.
'14-03-25, 20:26
 
JHS185EdwardBleeker

 Hi, we are the J.H.S 185 Edward Bleeker Lego League Research Team. We woud like to ask you a few questions relating to your article, "The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms". First off, what is your thought on the time it takes for the air inside the supercell thunderstorm cloud to ionize? Also, is there a difference between the structure of the electrical charges in a ordinary thunderstorm, a supercell thunderstorm--and or a supercell tornadic thunderstorm (or are supercell thunderstorms and supercell tornadic thunderstorms are the same)? Do the differences in density also affect the non-neautralization of the positive and negative charges circulating inside the supercell cloud? What is your thought on the further prediction of tornadoes and how should people today detect them? 

--We thank you for your time, sincerely,

Jaimie Chin, Alice Jiang, Jessica Huang, Nina Gatta, Christopher Chan, Amity Huang, Mr.DiLallo, Mr. Milikofsky, and the rest of the Lego League Team 
'14-03-25, 22:41
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
I'm happy to answer your questions. Just be advised that EM tornado theory is unconventional. Some scientists consider it to be science fiction. I, of course, think that they're wrong. :) But it shouldn't be presented to any audience, or in any manner, where it is not understood that this work is fully outside the mainstream of the existing meteorological science.
 
As concerns the time it takes for ionization to develop, we know that in less than 20 minutes from the time the thunderstorm achieves full height, golfball-size hailstones can develop. At that point, they have gone back and forth across the freezing line (~4 km above the ground) at least 10 times. To do this, they would have to be held in suspension in the air, otherwise, they would have fallen out as sleet. The only reasonable conclusion is that the hailstones are negatively charged, and they are being held in suspension by their attraction to the positive charge at the top of the cloud. So the ionization process begins as the thunderstorm approaches full height, and within 20 minutes, we're seeing the effects of strong electric fields.
 
As concerns the electrical structures, normal thunderstorms typically are a simple dipole, with a positively charged anvil, and where the main negative charge region is in the middle of the thunderstorm. Supercells typically are tripoles, with an additional concentration of positive charge at the ground level.
 
As concerns the difference between tornadic and non-tornadic supercells, there is no known structural difference within the storms themselves. The defining characteristic of the supercell is the large rotating updraft (i.e., the mesocyclone). But the latest research shows that supercells that produce tornadoes are indistinguishable on radar from those that do not. This would make sense if the essential ingredient in a tornado is the positively charged air at the ground, which doesn't show up on radar.
 
"Do the differences in density also affect the non-neautralization of the positive and negative charges circulating inside the supercell cloud?"
 
I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. If you mean the density of the air, yes, that is very definitely a factor. Air near the ground has roughly 3 times the resistance of air at the top of the cloud. So the charge separations can be 3 times more powerful before a discharge occurs.
 
As concerns predicting tornadoes, existing science neglects the EM factors, assuming that tornadoes are just fluid dynamic. IMO, this is why 75% of all tornado warnings are false alarms, and why 28% of all tornadoes that do develop are not predicted. With stats like that, we're definitely missing something. So I'm currently working on a project that might help. iPhones have built-in magnetometers, which they use to determine which way is up, so that when you rotate the phone, it rotates the display. Anyway, tornadoes generate distinctive magnetic fields, and it might be possible to use iPhones as tornado detectors, running an app that monitors the magnetometer, and sounds an alarm if the magnetic pattern is detected. Since there are a lot of iPhones out there, this could be significant, for scientific data collection, and well as for public safety. In other words, storm chasers might be able to collect valuable information in the field, and maybe even catch more tornadoes, and the general public might sleep better at night, if they leave an iPhone running a tornado detector app on the night-stand.
 
Let me know if you have any other questions. ;)
 
Regards,
Charles
'14-05-28, 15:32
 
astrodemigod

I have thoroughly enjoyed this. I have been testing this idea for around 10 years or so. Ian kind of a jack of all trades, only thing I dont do is sports. I am also a developer. I have been attempting to build an arduino based sensor array that uses mesh networking to communicate with other hubs. The express purpose being to gather magneto field data of localized areas.*13568 I especially want to prove your assumptions because I live in Arkansas less than 20 miles from the recent EF4. The thing was less than 1000 yards from my girlfriends home.
'14-05-28, 16:09
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
astrodemigod said:
The express purpose being to gather magneto field data of localized areas.
Cool.
 
I added you to the , so that you can post articles to the . There hasn't been much activity on this topic lately, as you can see. But little bits at a time have been adding up. So please contribute whatever knowledge you can to our overall understanding of tornadoes. It will save lives.
 
BTW, the "team" thing is something that we just started on QDL, but people seem to really like it, so I've been busy providing the supporting technology. If you're interested in participating in a team effort, I'll try to get some of the dormant members active again. And be sure to bring your friends into it.
'14-08-06, 11:56
 
cjm_2014

Hi Charles,

I've been fascinated by tornadoes for as long as I can remember - the interest was sparked by witnessing a 'hay' devil dancing around in a harvested field as a young boy, and recently I've started becoming interested / obsessed with electrogravitics.

Your electromagnetic explanation for tornadic formation and activity makes absolute sense and I greatly enjoyed reading your paper on the subject.

The EM field induced levitation effect you've documented also fits well with various (conspiracy!) theories for the effects of electromagnetic fields on objects. I wonder if the horizontal / updraft idea was pushed in favour of the ED model in order to keep anti-gravity principles under wraps? It's amazing to think that such electrical activity could render trucks and trains as 'weightless' - but I suspect this has been known for some time. The witness accounts you cite for this phenomena was fascinating to read.*13889

My very limited research into the subject led to me stubling across the lorentz fluid vortex experiment/demonstration - in my very limited experience, this looks quite a lot like a truly tornadic vortex to me:*13891

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaMf1aq6NjgI'll continue to follow your research with interest.

Cheers

Craig

'14-08-07, 05:26
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
cjm_2014 said:
The EM field induced levitation effect you've documented also fits well with various (conspiracy!) theories for the effects of electromagnetic fields on objects. I wonder if the horizontal / updraft idea was pushed in favour of the ED model in order to keep anti-gravity principles under wraps? It's amazing to think that such electrical activity could render trucks and trains as 'weightless' - but I suspect this has been known for some time. The witness accounts you cite for this phenomena was fascinating to read.
The electric field in which trucks and trains are lofted in a tornado (100 kV/m) is a thousand times stronger than the fair weather field (100 V/m), and the charge separation is maintained for long, since the air isn't a perfect resistor. So I'm not exactly imagining trucks with anti-gravity electrostatic wings flying around. ;) Nevertheless, it's at least theoretically possible that some lift could be provided, so I at least thought that the idea was worth capturing, pending further investigation, and that's just where it stands right now. ;)
Page: 1  2 
↑ UP Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2024 SCS-INC.US 		NEXT →