1) "The hurricane eye is a calm area with the lowest pressure relative to its surroundings. In there, it is clear and sunny with little or no clouds."

I was told that high pressure areas have clear and sunny conditions while low pressure ares have rainy conditions. But why while the hurricane eye has low pressure, it is very clam? And also, cold air is descending into the eye, shouldn't that be high pressure instead of low pressure?

2) I don't get the Coriolis Effect! The earth is rotating from west to east, so wouldn't all winds be deflected to the WEST when their original intention is to move straight north or south? But why in fact, the winds are deflected to the right in the northern hemisphere and deflected to the left in the southern hemisphere, as follows?
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth&Space/images/globalcirculation.jpg

I don't get the Coriolis Effect!

The Coriolis acceleration is twice the cross product of the Earth's angular rotation rate vector and the wind velocity vector. Note that because of the curvature of the Earth, all winds blowing parallel to the surface of the Earth have a component normal to the rotation vector except at the Equator.

Here is what this does to a wind blowing in the Northern Hemisphere:
A wind from the south turns to the east -- to the right.
A wind from the east turns to the north -- to the right.
A wind from the north turns to the west -- to the right.
A wind from the west turns to the south -- to the right.

In other words, the Coriolis effect directs all the winds to the right in the Northern Hemisphere. A low pressure system draws air in from all directions. The rightward deflection results in a counterclockwise flow. (In the Southern Hemisphere, all winds are directed to the left, resulting in clockwise flow around a low pressure system.)

The eye of a hurricane is clear because cold air is drawn from the upper atmosphere into the eye. This cold air has a much lower absolute humidity than warm air. Adiabatic heating raises the temperature of this air as it falls. Even if the cold air was at 100% relative humidity at the top of the hurricane, by the time it reaches the ground the relative humidity is quite low. The result: the eye is clear.

Then there's no difference in wind direction between a hurricane and a typhoon, right? But there might there be a slight average difference in strength since the Atlantic is colder and smaller than the Pacific?

The eye of a hurricane is clear because cold air is drawn from the upper atmosphere into the eye. This cold air has a much lower absolute humidity than warm air. Adiabatic heating raises the temperature of this air as it falls. Even if the cold air was at 100% relative humidity at the top of the hurricane, by the time it reaches the ground the relative humidity is quite low. The result: the eye is clear.

Then why is the eye "a calm area of LOW pressure"? Shouldn't calm areas have high pressure because cool air is sinking? :confused:

I am sure no one knows how a hurricane forms, or how its shape is maintained


If so artificial hurricanes/tornadoes would be very useful for energy generation
ie couple into the 'spin field' of the Earth.

A hurricane is the same thing as a cyclone, except it's called a cyclone in the Pacific:

When you fill up your bathtub and let it drain out, what do you see? What's in the center? It spins around and the outside revolves faster.

For a neat diagram of how hurricanes and cyclones form, click on the link at the bottom of this post:

"Structurally, a tropical cyclone is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity. Its primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes, the heat ultimately derived from the sun. Therefore, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the orbital revolution and gravity of the Earth. Continued condensation leads to higher winds, continued evaporation, and continued condensation, feeding back into itself. This gives rise to factors that give the system enough energy to be self-sufficient and cause a positive feedback loop where it can draw more energy as long as the source of heat, warm water, remains. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The orbital revolution of the Earth causes the system to spin, giving it a cyclone characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes

I am sure no one knows how a hurricane forms, or how its shape is maintained Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody does. Do not ascribe your ignorance on the rest of humanity. In fact, we know a <i>lot</i> (but certainly not everything) about how hurricanes form and how their shapes are maintained.

If so artificial hurricanes/tornadoes would be very useful for energy generation ie couple into the 'spin field' of the Earth. There is a big difference between knowing how something works and knowing how to harness that knowledge. I suspect we may never harness a hurricane. What happens if our pet hurricane gets free? Hurricanes pack a lot more punch than do nuclear weapons.

Then why is the eye "a calm area of LOW pressure"? Shouldn't calm areas have high pressure because cool air is sinking? :confused:

I understand why the eye is a calm area because cold air is sinking there, but would that give a high pressure area? Why is it still a low pressure area?

"A hurricane eye is an area of clam, low-pressure center"

And I was told early in time this relationship:
low pressure -> bad weather (rainy, cloudy)
high pressure -> good weather (clear, sunny)

But it is not working for the eye of a hurricane, it is like the complete opposite........!?

I understand why the eye is a calm area because cold air is sinking there, but would that give a high pressure area? Why is it still a low pressure area?

"A hurricane eye is an area of clam, low-pressure center"

And I was told early in time this relationship:
low pressure -> bad weather (rainy, cloudy)
high pressure -> good weather (clear, sunny)

But it is not working for the eye of a hurricane, it is like the complete opposite........!?

A hurricane operates on a positive feedback loop. See the cited articles in previous posts. It is this feedback loop that creates the clear eye in the most powerful hurricanes. Also see the National Hurricane Center's FAQ (www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html).

Stop focusing on the eye. Look at the big picture instead (and hurricanes are very big). The rule "Low pressure -> bad weather" is indeed the case when it comes to hurricanes. That is why the National Hurricane Center uses the eye pressure as a key barometer of hurricane intensity.

>> Do not ascribe your ignorance on the rest of humanity. >>

OK, how does a hurricane/tornado maintain its structure..... compact shape if you like ???

>> And I was told early in time this relationship:
low pressure -> bad weather (rainy, cloudy)
high pressure -> good weather (clear, sunny) >>>>

Air going up -> low pressure ? condensation
Air going down -> high pressure ? evaporation ?

In a hurricane air around the eye is going up

But how can a spiral going at 300km/hr not be blown apart by inertial forces ???

Solve this and you are into spin gravity.

But how can a spiral going at 300km/hr not be blow appart by unertial forces ???

Solve this and you are into spin gravity.

Wow. I think you just lost all credibility there.

You probably mean 'centripetal' forces. And what the heck is spin gravity? Something you coined? Or do you refer to the Coriolis effect? Show me a NOAA website with the term 'spin gravity'. I would like to know what it means.

Two years ago we had a forum on sciforum under the Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology category called "Electrodynamic Spin Gravity."

"Due to spin and gravity, the Earth (including its solid part, seas, and atmosphere) takes ellipsoidal form. Force acting on an object on stationary spherical Earth surface is due to gravity, in line with vertical (perpendicular to surface). All verticals meet at the center of Earth. For spinning ellipsoidal Earth, the object is subjected to two forces. Gravity force (to center of ellipsoid) and Centrifugal force (perpendicular to axis of rotation). These two forces combine to form an inward force perpendicular to surface of Earth and zero force tangential to surface."
http://www.mngogate.com/e13.htm

"The term describing the specific spin (gravitational moment) interaction effect is recovered in the Hamiltonian. The comparison of the true gravitational coupling with the purely inertial case demonstrates that the spin relativistic effects do not violate the equivalence principle for the Dirac fermions."
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012102

also: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003IAUSS...4E..94C&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=

Apparently a 'funnel cloud' hit Great Britian recently

a rare event
but these incidences in the world are growing in number.

Interesting paper

http://www.math.nsc.ru/directions/tornado-eng.htm

>> The parent cloud has a three-story structure with rotation in horizontal plane , with middle and lower layer rotating in opposite directions [16], [17]. >>

Gravity is spiral in structure, IMO.

>> The interior hollow of a funnel has a clearly defined air walls, with lightning flashing between them. or water surface, then the action of current sharply displays itself. At the same time , when a funnel doesn’t touch the ground, there’s no vertical flow. In 1951 in Texas a funnel passed over an observer at 6 meter height , the interior having diameter about 130 m with walls of 3 meter width.

Inside the hollow there was a brilliant cloud. There was no vacuum inside, because it was easy to breath . The walls were rotating with a very high speed, ant the rotation might be seen up to the top of the column. A bit later the funnel touched the neighbor’s house and immediately took it off [20].

This description is similar to many others [21], [22], [23] and require the explanation of the fact that rotation of the air necessarily leads to decrease of pressure. Why, being 6m above the ground, the funnel end causes neither damage nor intense air motion, while, upon touching the ground, destroys and moves off a house?

Direct measurements show that there is a low pressure area inside the funnel ( 951 mb, Topica June 8, 1966). Such pressure decrease may be resulted at air rotation speed of about 100 m/sec and should make the breath difficult.

Why the funnel uncovers the river bed sucking out it’s water, while at the same time the observers even do not notice a wind when the funnel passes above them? >>>


I contend that these are 'spin gravity' manifestations, cause by static electricity.

I think a similar phemonemon occurred with the space shuttle teather, when the teather 'burnt' out. It was captured on video camera.

I understand why the eye is a calm area because cold air is sinking there, but would that give a high pressure area? Why is it still a low pressure area?

"A hurricane eye is an area of clam, low-pressure center"

And I was told early in time this relationship:
low pressure -> bad weather (rainy, cloudy)
high pressure -> good weather (clear, sunny)

But it is not working for the eye of a hurricane, it is like the complete opposite........!?

It's confusing, Kingwinner, because you are overlooking one major part of the action. As the colder air falls, it's warmed and pulled rapidly into the hurricane wall. So rapidly, in fact that it never quite makes it down to the surface. That's why surface conditions are so calm and why the pressure drops to such low values.

from link

>> According to our model a parent cloud of tornado beside its observable part has an unobservable part in the form of a vacuum domain. Under a joint action of gravitational and electrical field, which in a storm-cloud achieves a value in a hundreds of millions of volts, thin long vacuum domains with high density of defects are being stretched out from a domain. Spin polarisation of such a domain causes the rotation of a tornado's funnel. The calculations made by V.L.Dyatlov as applied to a vacuum with 100% defect density show that tangential stresses can achieve in it hundreds of kilograms per centimeter [11].

In the air when a funnel doesn't touch solid objects, unstable momentum is compensated by the rotation of a funnel and the air connected with this funnel. And in a solid body these momenta cause the large tangential stresses which are sufficient for cutting off the wheels of a car or for turning a brick church from the west to the east.

A positive mass localized on a lower end of a funnel explains a fast extension of a funnel and a subsequent blow against the surface of the earth or water.

A vacuum domain as well as a vacuum doesn't have the conductivity of self-gravitational current, it doesn't possess a free gravitational charges. Therefore while touching the surface only the surface gravitational charges go in the ground. At that a funnel is detached from the ground. Whereupon the process of polarisation again extends a funnel and it again touches the ground. In such a way it may be explained an observable dotted contact of a funnel with the earth.

The energy source as in the experiment of Einstein-de-Haas is energy of the magnetic field, in this case - energy of the polarisation. Thus a gravitational energy is transformed into a spin energy.

A cloud always rises through a height of 20 km above a funnel of tornado. Since an upper boundary of the troposphere passing in a middle latitudes at a height of 10-11 km confines all thermobaric processes in the atmosphere, a manifestation of tornado at such a height can't have a meteorological explanation, but it can have a gravidynamical explanation. A stretched and strongly polarized vacuum domain contains at its upper end a large positive mass and positive electrical charge. And both charges repel from the earth and rushes together with the air outside the troposphere. The entrapped moisture makes a domain visible.

The most widespread and the most inexplicable manifestation of tornado as a picking of solid objects by soft ones
( straws pick boards, chips pick trunks, a board penetrates a wall of a house, a thick steel plate) also can be explained by the accepted model, see Fig.5.

Image of straws penetrating more solid matter at
http://www.math.nsc.ru/directions/Figure5.jpg

(image too big ..... how does one reduce the size of a large image ??? )

Another tornado devistated some homes in Iowa. Iowa does not generally have tornados. I have spoken with some people in regards to the tornado there as well as Indiana. These storms "have come from no where" and it is likely that they will happen again. On another note, tropical storm Gamma
is likely to turn into another hurricane.
Hopefully everyone is paying attention to these "global earth changes" and what is happening here in the United States.
Proto

a tornado...has a vacuum domain. Under a joint action of gravitational and electrical field, which in a storm-cloud achieves a value in a hundreds of millions of volts, thin long vacuum domains with high density of defects are being stretched out from a domain. Spin polarisation of such a domain causes the rotation of a tornado's funnel....A vacuum domain as well as a vacuum doesn't have the conductivity of self-gravitational current, it doesn't possess a free gravitational charges. Therefore while touching the surface only the surface gravitational charges go in the ground....The energy source...is energy of the magnetic field, in this case - energy of the polarisation. Thus a gravitational energy is transformed into a spin energy....a manifestation of tornado at such a height can't have a meteorological explanation, but it can have a gravidynamical explanation. A stretched and strongly polarized vacuum domain contains at its upper end a large positive mass and positive electrical charge. And both charges repel from the earth and rushes together with the air outside the troposphere.
And then I quoted that a hurricane or typhoon "is subjected to two forces: Gravity force (to center of ellipsoid) and Centrifugal force (perpendicular to axis of rotation). These two forces combine to form an inward force perpendicular to surface of Earth."

We're drifting here a bit but we all seem to agree that both the center of a hurricane and the center of a tornado are due to the center low pressure area within and and the upward convection. And we both seem to have cited sources that account for the source and/or origin of both hurricanes and tornadoes as due to both gravity and the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth: "gravidynamical explanation."

So what makes the two different? Or why doesn't a hurricane turn into a tornado when it hits land? Actually I know that a hurricane does sometimes spawn tornadoes on land.

So what makes the two different? Or why doesn't a hurricane turn into a tornado when it hits land? Actually I know that a hurricane does sometimes spawn tornadoes on land.

Actually, I'd quickly change that last statement to : "it's very rare that a hurricane does NOT spawn tornadoes." I've lived in the Southeastern U.S. for over 50 years and every single one those beasts that's made landfall (as far back as I can remember) has spawned at least one or two and sometimes as many as a dozen or more tornadoes.

Yeah, I agree. So why does a hurricane spawn tornadoes when our above scenario attributes tornadoes to a gravitational AND "electrical field" ["which in a storm-cloud achieves a value in a hundreds of millions of volts, thin long vacuum domains with high density of defects are being stretched out from a domain"], while hurricanes are produced by gravitational and centrifugal force (the Corriolis effect?)?

Yeah, I agree. So why does a hurricane spawn tornadoes when our above scenario attributes tornadoes to a gravitational AND "electrical field" ["which in a storm-cloud achieves a value in a hundreds of millions of volts, thin long vacuum domains with high density of defects are being stretched out from a domain"], while hurricanes are produced by gravitational and centrifugal force (the Corriolis effect?)?

Well, you're leaving out some major components. A hurricane is primarily a heat-driven storm. I think we've already pretty well discussed how it's fueled by warm, moist air rising from the warm surface of the water.

All that moisture is being rapidly whipped around which, just as in a standard thunderstorm, strips electrons from the water molecules and builds up a tremendous electrical field. So upon striking land, which disrupts the form (shape) of the hurricane as it passes over irregularities on the surface, it can easily break into small, twisting vortexes and the necessary electrical energy is already present.

Yeah, I agree I left out a lot. But are you saying that a hurricane also has a similar electric field as that of a tornado? I mean, I've never heard of thunderbolts and lightning coming out of a hurricane like that in a tornado storm, or am I wrong?

Yeah, I agree I left out a lot. But are you saying that a hurricane also has a similar electric field as that of a tornado? I mean, I've never heard of thunderbolts and lightning coming out of a hurricane like that in a tornado storm, or am I wrong?

Yes, they produce a LOT of thunder and lightning. But because of the strong winds, people seldom notice lightning when large objects are flying around and you can't even stand up. ;)

The Fujita scale has a problem because people estimate wind speeds from damage so it's very subjective. How about the Saffir-Simpson scale? Is there anything or problems that make it imperfect?

>> Or why doesn't a hurricane turn into a tornado when it hits land?

Because in a hurricane it is surrounded by a diamagnetic field.


>> are produced by gravitational and centrifugal force (the Corriolis effect?)? >>>

This is too simplistic.... IMO

basically "gravity" and centrifugal force are inappropriate terms

I prefer geomagnetic field, and electric field (E due to motion in the B field.), orthogonally opposed..... the result of local interation is spin.

The 'spin' is an eddy.

You can have Tornadoes without water
I think Tornadoes exist on Mars.

You can't have Hurricanes without a diamagnetic ring... water on Earth
most probably SO2 on Jupiter. A gravity (resultant) is spiral.

Just conjecture drawn from theory.

Kingwinner, in case you are still following this thread, just beware that it has gone off into the deep end.

You can't have Hurricanes without a diamagnetic ring... water on Earth
most probably SO2 on Jupiter. A gravity (resultant) is spiral.

Just conjecture drawn from theory.

There is no theory here. Just conjecture on top of conjecture on top of conjecture.

Yes, they produce a LOT of thunder and lightning. But because of the strong winds, people seldom notice lightning when large objects are flying around and you can't even stand up. ;)Oh, I see - or rather, that's why I don't see, right? Thanks.

Off the deep end. Here we go. Then let's clarify what exactly is the difference between a tornado and a hurricane (other than how they are formed - on land, on sea, respectively). Or is a hurricane just an overgrown tornado on water?

They both require a central low pressure system with warm convection currents and an electrodynamic spin gravity with "gravity force (to center of ellipsoid) and centrifugal force (perpendicular to axis of rotation). These two forces combine to form an inward force perpendicular to the surface of the Earth."

Hurricanes (or cyclones) are initially produced because of the Coriolos Effect or Corriolis acceleration - this is the centrifugal force that influences the upward rising underlying warm currents of the ocean. But tornadoes are produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly and then spin. Where does a tornado's spin come from?

And now enter a diamagnetic ring? Do they both have this? A diamagnetic field, or "geomagnetic field, and electric field (E due to motion in the B field)"? And what is a "B field"? What is it and where does it come from?

On pondering, check this one out:

"Most tornadoes rotate cyclonically, which is counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise south of the equator. Anticyclonic tornadoes (clockwise-spinning in the northern hemisphere) have been observed, however usually in the form of waterspouts, non-supercell land tornadoes, or anticyclonic whirls around the rim of a supercell's mesocyclone. There have been several documented cases of cyclonic and anticyclonic tornadoes under the same thunderstorm at the same time. [There are also] multivortex (multiple-vortex) tornadoes thsat contain two or more small, intense subvortices orbiting the center of the larger tornado circulation."
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#The%20Basics

Whew! Starting to get too hot to handle!

>> Where does a tornado's spin come from?

most probably an electical distortion high up... ionosphere or higher
see fair weather field..

The world seems to be experiencing a number of 'twisting storms'
Maybe the potential of the Earth's static electric field is increasing ???

>> And now enter a diamagnetic ring? Do they both have this? >>>


no, only in the cloud ring in a hurricane (made of diamagnetic water)

>> A diamagnetic field, or "geomagnetic field, >>

no, diamagnetism is anti-magnetism.... a geomagnetic field is a massive magnetic field


>>and electric field (E due to motion in the B field)"? And what is a "B field"? What is it >>


B field is geomagnetic, E field is its induction counter due to motion.

>> where does it come from?>>

all matter ( cosmic matter) has a static electric and geomagnetic moment. These two fields are orthogonal and in harmonic equilibrium.

Valich, my post information is drawn from personal research.

>> There is no theory here.

oh indeed there is sound theory... it is called Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory (ESGT)
but I like Electro-Spin Gravity, not so formal

Thanks! But I'm still not very clear on what a diamagnetic ring is? Or what a B field and E field (Okay, E Field is electric field, but "E field is its induction counter due to motion"???" I'm lost there:

"Historically B was called the magnetic flux density, magnetic induction, or magnetic field strength. H was called the magnetic field (or magnetic field intensity), and this terminology is still often used to distinguish the two in the context of magnetic materials (non-trivial permeability μ). Otherwise, however, this distinction is often ignored, and both symbols are frequently referred to as the magnetic field. (Some authors call H the auxiliary field, instead.) In linear materials, such as air or free space, the two quantities are linearly related."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-field

I don't follow this? And then they also state:

"The concept of electromagnetic propulsion is no simpler than in a simple coilgun: a (preferably soft) iron core is inserted into a coil. When a diamagnetic metallic torus is placed around the core, because it cannot be magnetized, its atoms become agitated, current is produced in it (thereby producing a magnetic field), and the electromagnet produces an opposing field (in accordance with Lenz's law and the law of the conservation of energy). Because of this opposition, the ring is fired off of the electromagnet, propelling it away. (Note that if the torus (or ring) is prevented from escaping the magnetic field, due to the induced current, it will become very hot. This is how induction cookers work.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_propulsion"

So I'm thinking that a diamagnetic ring is the same thing as a diamagnetic metallic torus? And a toroid is a "a surface generated by a closed curve rotating about, but not intersecting or containing, an axis in its own plane."

Okay, I can understand that. But how that explains cylone, hurricane, or tornado rotation is way beyond me. My guess is that we just don't know yet?

I don't think a tornado is due to electric distortions higher up. I have observed water spouts twirling off the shores of Lake Erie 10 to 50 feet high that look exactly like miniature tornadoes. Wikipedea states "Exactly how tornadoes form is complex and not fully understood" and provide little additional info. However under "funnel clouds" it states that funnel clouds are directly related to tornadoes: "The mixing of cooler air in the lower troposphere with air flowing in an opposing direction from the middle troposphere causes the rotation on a horizontal axis, which when deflected vertically by atmospheric conditions can form into a funnel cloud."

I find this explanation inadequate too because the middle troposhere has differing wind directions.

>> what a diamagnetic ring is?

In a hurricane it is the ring of water which is a very substantial diamagnetic ring, many millions of tons.

B field I call the magnetic field/flux density.... it is the density of the field at r
H, I would call the magnetic field strength, which is length of dipole dependent, a parameter of the body itself.

Earth's field B is puny here as compared to the world's strongest magnets, however the H of the Earth makes the world's strongest magnets but toys.

>> a diamagnetic ring is the same thing as a diamagnetic metallic torus?

yes

In the article....
Some metals are diamagnetic, eg mercury, bismith, gold
so it could be that the ring is made of one of these metals.

Some non metals are as well, water, oxygen, people.

In the article, it seems like a diamagnetic force is only applicable to certain metals, not hurricanes and tornadoes. And as you say, "some metals are diamagnetic..." ("dia-" means "across" or "through"). It doesn't seem like this is what would cause cyclones to spin with water. My guess is that the spin starts from an angular twist in wind direction, within a low pressure area, and then this circular motion is sustained due to the Coriolis effect which causes clockwise rotation above the equator and counterclockwise below it.

However, in support of a geomagnetic effect theory, check out the diagram halfway down the page on the article describing magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) - looks just like a tornado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

But they initial define MHD as "a discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water." What about fresh water? Is salt water more electrically conductive to electricity than fresh water? Tonadoes (freshwater) vs. hurricanes (salt water): yet they both spin.

But then read the first content paragraph "Ideal MHD." This seems to be a possible explanation. Once a hydrolic spin is initiated, it might sustain itself through magnetic divided field lines. Centrifugal force would act outward perpendicular to the spin, which would tend to break it up, but the produced electromagnetic field - along with both the Coriolis effect and hydrogen bond attractions - would tend to hold the spin together? Pure speculation here.

The Coriolis effect:

"As the wind blows from all sides to fill an area of low pressure, the Coriolis effect therefore creates rotation around the low pressure system. The winds around areas of low pressure circulate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, while in the Southern Hemisphere this circulation is clockwise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Magnetic-rope.gif/300px-Magnetic-rope.gif

yes gravity is a spiral structure.

See Poynting power vector... this is set up around all independent cosmic matter, but spun from afar... differential field spin.
Of course differential field spin will cause tertiaries of Earth... basically tornadeos of some strength, however supply the diamagnetic ring of water, and the spin can be greately expanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
>> the electric current sheets that separate different magnetic domains >>

The E vectors (current sheets) and B vectors are orthogonal..... the resultant is orthogonal to the BXE plane (call this 'gravity').

>> Hannes Alfvén, ..., wrote in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics >>

yes, profound insight..... the Schumann resonance shows the electrodynamic spin drift of Earth's field, about 8 cycles/sec (7.91 kms/sec)

These principles are the basis of my "Electro Spin Gravity Theory" (push gravity)

I do not understand everything, and I am pleased to get some help.

Most (all) people so far have cried sick lad!!!!

Thanks for showing intelligent interest.


>> circular motion is sustained due to the Coriolis effect >>>

there is far more energy in the system than can be explained by a 'coriolis effect' as it is envisaged.

It's not decisive though whether or not magnetohydrodynamics applies to tornadoes and/or to all cyclones. The simple short-lived water spouts that I observe off the shores of Lake Erie certainly don't have much energy, or are these part of what you are referring to as "tertiaries of Earth"? And as you can see from the MHD diagram, there seems to be three different spin cycles involved. I know meteorologists have done experiment(s) where they circulated metal chips inside a tornado and measured the circulation patterns. Perhaps if we could locate the results of these experiment(s) they might indicate a similar pattern to make the theory more credible.

Also, there must be some information out there where they have measured changes in EM field as a tornado crossed over. All they would have to do is throw a gaussmeter out in front of it to measure the field strength (magnetic flux density is measured in teslas: still, 1 milligauss(mG) = 100nanoTessla(nT). Same difference.

Poynting vector (cross product of the electric field and the magnetic field) measured as the power flux density: Poynting vector S = E x H, where E is the electric field strength measured in volts/metre, and H is the magnetic field strength measured in amps/metre.

We need a study with gauss data to establish empirical proof.

There has to be a study about this somewhere. I mean this would be so easy to do. Look how large a hurricane is. NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could just fly over a hurricane and drop gaussmeters at intermittent distances across and relay the reading. They could do this both at the top, middle, and ground level, monitoring the results.

Summary of the results of the Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornado Experiment (VORTEX) conducted in 1994-95, managed by Erik Rasmussen, National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL):

“The basic atmospheric physics that gives rise to tornadoes is well understood by now. Thunderstorms usually contain updrafts, large rising swells of warm, moist air. As the updraft moves, it rotates; if the rotation grows sufficiently intense, the storm can evolve into a tornado or funnel cloud (a tornado whose bottom does not touch the ground). Supercomputer simulations depict this process quite dramatically. Most tornadoes form within an especially intense weather system known as a supercell. Supercell thunderstorms occur when the warm updraft punches through an overlying, stable layer and continues upward into a zone of cool, dry air. The resulting instabilities produce powerful vortex motions, the lifeblood of tornadoes (a pair of computer-generated images depicts the difference between supercell and non-supercell storms). Within the fiercest tornadoes, wind speeds can approach 300 miles per hour. Air rushing in to fill the low-pressure void left by the tornado creates additional fierce, potentially damaging winds.”

Source: “Scientists unravel the twisted ways of tornadoes,” by Corey S. Pwell, Scientific American, May 20, 1996. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00007AD9-70C1-1C76-9B81809EC588EF21

Updated Findings:
“A few important new findings have been made. We have found that boundaries, which are the leading edges of pools of cooler air left behind by thunderstorms, are prime locations for later tornado formation. Evidence suggests that the temperature contrast along these small-scale "fronts" supplies the air with horizontal rotation like a rolling pin. Then, when a mature storm moves across a boundary, the rotation is tilted upward into the storm's updraft so that the spin has the orientation of a top, while at the same time being stretched and intensified. This process imparts strong rotation to the lower levels of the storm updraft, which seems to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for tornado formation.
Tornado formation itself seems to be strongly linked to the character and behavior of a downdraft at the back side of the supercell storm, recognized for many years as the "rear-flank downdraft." In tornadic supercells observed in VORTEX, this downdraft straddles two regions of opposite rotation: the developing mesocyclone, with its cyclonic, or counter-clockwise spin, and a region of anticyclonic, or clockwise spin, that spirals around the outside of the downdraft. As this downdraft develops, it carves its way into the main storm updraft in the shape of a hook. In fact, this downdraft often contains enough rain to produce the hook-shaped echo seen on radar reflectivity displays. In effect, the downdraft draws rotation downward from aloft, while at the same time focusing it toward a common center. Once the rotation is focused enough, it becomes strong enough to develop a funnel cloud and raise dirt and debris at the ground, becoming a tornado.”
Source: “New findings on the origins of tornadoes from VORTEX, by Erik Rasmussen, NOAA Research, updated 2005. http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_nssl.html
Hurricanes:
“Warm sea surfaces provide latent and sensible energy for hurricanes to grow and rough land surfaces drain energy by frictional process from hurricanes….hurricanes are largely sustained by physical processes in the storm’s eyewall. The concentric patterns appear wave-like, propagating both inward and outward with respect to the hurricane center.... hurricane tracks are greatly affected (one could say...steered”) by the large scale upper level winds and hurricanes cannot maintain intensity and structure in the presence of
environmental vertical wind shear.”

Source: “Controlling the Evolution of a Simulated Hurricane Through Optimal Perturbations: Initial Experiments Using a 4-D Variational Analysis System,” by R. N. Hoffman, C. Grassotti, J. M. Henderson, S. M. Leidner, G. Modica, and T. Nehrkorn, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., 2003.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_FvFlU76bT4J:ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/83940.pdf+hurricane,+power+flux+density&hl=en

I am unable to find ANY information about electromagnetic activity in tornadoes or hurricanes, although the United States Air Force has a program within their Air Force Weather (AFW) called University Partnering for Operational Support (UPOS) that is collaborating with various universities to develop “electromagnetic propogation forecast maps generated from MM5 output.”

Source: “The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research Fiscal Year 2006,” Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
http://www.ofcm.noaa.gov/fp-fy06/pdf/entire-fedplanFY2006.pdf

>> As the updraft moves, it rotates; if the rotation grows sufficiently intense, >>

yes, I have read the inadequate theories.... no one can explain how a massive vortex maintains its integrity (shape/structure)

Gravity is a spiral, so yes you see this vortex in falling water, and rising smoke.

But this is only a start of the action.

All those links are description rather than cause via a process that can deliver the energy/power required.

As far as I can make out, the theory is totally lacking.... however spin gravity theory (in the right hands/mind) would explain it.

At present ESGT is only theory that can be applied to the Universe..... local manifestations would be supported but I do not have the physics background needed.
But I push on, learning more as I walk the path.

>> there seems to be three different spin cycles involved.

yes two primaries and a resultant.

In ESGT there is a preferred frame of reference, this is not absolute, in the sense that there is always input from outside.... such that the Sun's field spin is a consequence of the galaxies field spin.... which is a...

I call the primary spin a toroidal spin frame, the Earth's field spin, a poloidal spin frame is driven by the toroidal spin system

If you include the Moon, the Earth's field spin is toroidal and the Moon's field spin is poloidal.

It is the field spin around a body that results in "gravity", but as you can see, that field spin is differentially driven by another more powerful spin.

<img src=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_profile_graphic.gif>
Hurricanes form when the energy released by the condensation of moisture in rising air causes a positive feedback loop. The air heats up, rising further, which leads to more condensation. The air flowing out of the top of this “chimney” drops towards the ground, forming powerful winds.

"A cyclone [or a hurricane as they are called in the Atlantic] is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity. Its primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes, the heat ultimately derived from the sun. Therefore, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the orbital revolution and gravity of the Earth. Continued condensation leads to higher winds, continued evaporation, and continued condensation, feeding back into itself. This gives rise to factors that give the system enough energy to be self-sufficient and cause a positive feedback loop where it can draw more energy as long as the source of heat, warm water, remains. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The orbital revolution of the Earth causes the system to spin, giving it a cyclone characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm.

The factors to form a tropical cyclone include a pre-existing weather disturbance, warm tropical oceans, moisture, and relatively light winds aloft. If the right conditions persist and allow it to create a feedback loop by maximizing the energy intake possible, for example, such as high winds to increase the rate of evaporation, they can combine to produce the violent winds, incredible waves, torrential rains, and floods associated with this phenomenon.

Condensation as a driving force is what primarily distinguishes tropical cyclones from other meteorological phenomena, and because this is strongest in a tropical climate, this defines the initial domain of the tropical cyclone. By contrast, mid-latitude cyclones, for example, draw their energy mostly from pre-existing horizontal temperature gradients in the atmosphere. In order to continue to drive its heat engine, a tropical cyclone must remain over warm water, which provides the atmospheric moisture needed. The condensation of this moisture is driven by the high winds and reduced atmospheric pressure in the storm, resulting in a sustaining cycle. As a result, when a tropical cyclone passes over land, its strength diminishes rapidly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes

[/IMG]<img src=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_profile_graphic.gif>

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Hurricane_profile_graphic.gif>

Hello Valich,

I believe it's finally time for me to appear back in this thread again. Everything you've posted is good, solid science. Pretty much everything your correspondent (URI) has posted is pure junk and conjecture on his part. He appears to be out to set the world on edge with his "theories" of paramagnetism, E, H, and B-field nonsense. He really has nothing to stand on anywhere in that. (He's also the same crackpot who did certain "calculations" about moon landings and the black hole at the center of the galaxy. And when asked to show his calculations, he ran like a scared rabbit!) :D

So don't take anything he ever says as serious. I took six quarters of meteorology (though it wasn't at all related to either of my degrees, just something I've always been interested in) and also continue today to stay on top of the latest research and developments.

Yes, both hurricanes and tornadoes are heat-driven. And I believe at this point you have a good grip on hurricanes so I'll talk just a bit about tornadoes.

One piece of information you came across and posted (downdrafts at the rear of supercells, etc.) came very close to mentioning what is currently accepted as the conditions that actually spawn one. In addition to the downdraft which can acquire a twisting motion, there is also another mechanism which has been recognized. In any thunderstorm that produces supercells, there is always a cold front overriding a warm front. This always produces a turbulence at the interface. Initially, that turbulence starts out as a horizontally rotating mass of air and a great deal of energy is released from the condensation of the warm, moist air. And that's exactly what feeds and produces the supercell itself.

Here is the next step. If there is sufficient turbulence and it releases sufficient energy at the point the downdraft becomes strong enough, the horizontally rotating air will be pulled downward and a "funnel cloud" may begin to appear at a slight vertical angle. This is what shows up on doppler radar as a "hook" and indicates that a tornado may be forming. And it's precisely at that point under today's guidelines that the National Weather Service will issue an alert.

If the warm/cool interface continues to release enough energy and the downdraft grows strong enough, the funnel cloud will continue to drop lower and lower and an actual tornado may form. It's really quite a grand balancing act that has to occur just so or the tornado will fail to fully form and the rotating "log" of air can be easily drawn back into the full (or near) horizontal orientation. And we should be very thankful that it requires such a precise balancing act to produce them - otherwise they would be much more frequent.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program (which is your dealings with the weather-wacko URI.) :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Hurricane_profile_graphic.gif

from >> wacko URI.>>

This diagram is deficient in that there is a spin over and above what has been shown.

The whole cell spins horizontally... a tangential vector plus there is an axial circulation vector... a torus, contained in a diamagnetic ring, and a resultant that maintains the integrity ( shape, structure ) to counter the normal inertial path outwards due to the spin.

3 vectors, a Poynting crossed power vector and resultant is produced...... The diamagnetic shielding allows the spin to increase to an equilibrium value depending upon friction.
The B vector is axial (vertical circulation), the E vector is tangential (horizontal circulation), while the orthogonal resultant directed towards the centre (radial force) contains the whole torus.



Mr Light please show the mechanics of your descriptions..... give us some meat to your alleged process.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Hurricane_profile_graphic.gif

from >> wacko URI.>>

This diagram is deficient in that there is a spin over and above what has been shown.

The whole cell spins horizontally... a tangential vector plus there is an axial circulation vector... a torus, contained in a diamagnetic ring, and a resultant that maintains the integrity ( shape, structure ) to counter the normal inertial path outwards due to the spin.

3 vectors, a Poynting crossed power vector and resultant is produced...... The diamagnetic shielding allows the spin to increase to an equilibrium value depending upon friction.
The B vector is axial (vertical circulation), the E vector is tangential (horizontal circulation), while the orthogonal resultant directed towards the centre (radial force) contains the whole torus.



Mr Light please show the mechanics of your descriptions..... give us some meat to your alleged process.

MY process???? Hardly! What I described is the most current thinking (as of six months ago, anyway). And I'll show you nothing until you provide those "calculations" that you claimed to have made - and then ran like a scared kid when a few of us asked you for them! Still waiting...

I could calculate the Poynting vector and the 'gravity' that contains the spin system, if I knew the spin rate at r from the centre.

I will assume a tangential spin velocity of 300 km/hr at 100 km from the centre.

A radial acceleration about 0.07 m/sec^2 would "contain" the hurricane.

>> like a scared kid when a few of us asked you for them!

I don't respond to such requests.... I know you would have no idea what my calculations mean. << And I'll show you nothing >>> good idea.

So cyas

Believe your <<< most current thinking >>

good luck.....

>> like a scared kid when a few of us asked you for them!

I don't respond to such requests.... I know you would have no idea what my calculations mean. << And I'll show you nothing >>> good idea.

So cyas

Believe your <<< most current thinking >>

good luck.....

Yep, just like before. Run away when your bluff is called. We're all getting to know what a fake you really are. "Worthless" comes to mind...

Bye-bye! (Good riddance!)

URI: "This diagram is deficient in that there is a spin over and above what has been shown."

I am not totally discounting your theory, but I believe that the explanation given in Wikipedia and confirmed by Light (I've only taken one course in meteorology, plus flight training) to be highly adequate to explain the formation and sustaining of both tornadoes and cylones. The reverse currents "over and above" the diagram are clearly explained as part of the "positive feedback loop." Condensation of the uplifted warm water and thermal conduction are sufficient evidence for me.
In addition to the downdraft which can acquire a twisting motion, there is also another mechanism which has been recognized. In any thunderstorm that produces supercells, there is always a cold front overriding a warm front. This always produces a turbulence at the interface. Initially, that turbulence starts out as a horizontally rotating mass of air and a great deal of energy is released from the condensation of the warm, moist air. And that's exactly what feeds and produces the supercell itself.

Here is the next step. If there is sufficient turbulence and it releases sufficient energy at the point the downdraft becomes strong enough, the horizontally rotating air will be pulled downward and a "funnel cloud" may begin to appear at a slight vertical angle. If the warm/cool interface continues to release enough energy and the downdraft grows strong enough, the funnel cloud will continue to drop lower and lower and an actual tornado may form. It's really quite a grand balancing act that has to occur just so or the tornado will fail to fully form and the rotating "log" of air can be easily drawn back into the full (or near) horizontal orientation. In addition to the downdraft producing the spin, the initial updraft of warm moist air in the low pressure zone also produces a spin as it rises. This is what I have read quite a few times. Can you confirm this?

URI: Again, I am not discrediting your theory, as it does have some merit, but after five hours of researching this I have found no evidence of an electromagnetic field being the cause or sustaining force of a tornado, hurricane, or cyclone. In fact, I have found no references to EM at all! Yet, this is not to say that an EM doesn't exist! Water cohesion is held together through hydrogen bonding. A cyclone would try to break this bonding apart via centrifugal force. Because of the charged in the water molecules, I would think that there should be at least a slight amount of EM present.

However, I have read probably all of Erik Rasmussen numerous published scientific journals articles, and, although he uses mostly Dopler Radar to arrive at his conclusions from the 1994-95 "Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornado Experiment (VORTEX)," I find it hard to below that he would not have at least tried to use a gaussmeter to check for EM during this United States Government (NOAA) funded two-year experiment. Had he found any evidence that EM was involved in the formation, circulation, and sustaining of a tornado, then I think he would've at least made reference to it somewhere. This scientist now works for the NOAA and has spent his entire life tracking and anayzing tornadoes - initiqally with the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).

As I said, your theory has merit, but I think that the posting of the magnetohydrodynamics diagram was premature and deceiving. There is no empirical evidence that this applies to tornadoes and cyclones at all.

At this point, since I have virtually exhausted all the sources available online or written in books and journals, I think the only way to proceed is to directly contact either:

1) Erik Rasmussen
2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
3) the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).
4) the United States Air Force, Air Force Weather (AFW), with reference to their University Partnering for Operational Support (UPOS) that is now mapping EM propogation forecast maps.
5) NASA

NASA and the USAF would definitely know if EM or MHD is produced in tornado or hurricane formations as this would affect the vital instrumentation of their aircraft. What if the space shuttle were forced to land during a storm? They would have to know this!

Again, after five hours of researching, I have found no indication or references to EM or MHD in tornadoes and cyclones. We can not proceed without some sort of further evidence. The theory described in Wikipedia and confirmed and ellaborated on very clearly and concisely by Light, do not leave me with any further questions: the evidence and explanations are adequate to me.

In addition to the downdraft producing the spin, the initial updraft of warm moist air in the low pressure zone also produces a spin as it rises. This is what I have read quite a few times. Can you confirm this?


Yes, Valich, that is correct. It was my fault for failing to mention it. But at that moment I was primarily concerned with explaining how the downdraft - which plays the predominate role in this - was responsible for causing the horizontally rolling mass of air (a rolling "log", if you will) to be forced into a more vertical position.

In all fairness, I must mention that EM activity is well-known to be present in tornadoes. But in no way linked to URI's rather, umm, "revolutionary vision."

Long before the development of weather radar and Doppler in specific and warning systems (during the 1950s and 1960s) people were told how to detect a tornado with an ordinary TV set. This was also prior to the days of cable TV so it involved using your home antenna. The procedure was very simple. Switch to an unassigned channel in your area and observe the "snow" (interference). There will always be a certain level of background noise present but when a tornado is within range - 10 to 15 miles, depending on it's intensity and size - you will see a very noticeable increase in the brightness of the snow. And it will actually pulse slowly. Lightning can be detected at the same time but is discernible as single, momentary bright pulses while that made by the tornado can fairly accurately be described as similar to "slow breathing" in rhythm.

It may very well be that URI is aware of this and it might even form the basis for his theory. But what he is failing to tell, or possibly doesn't even know, is that the field generated is extremely weak. And that's precisely why the high-gain of a TV's receiver (which automatically cranks wide-open with a no-signal condition like this) cannot detect the storm until it is almost on top of you.

This field in generated just as you described and in precisely the same manner as lightning is created - the rapidly moving air strips electrons from the water molecules which also leaves ions behind as well. But it is a continuous process - as compared to individual thunderbolts - and that's why it's detectable in the UHF frequency band as a present but varying signal - compared to just a spike.

As I said a moment ago, URI may have used this as a basis for his theory. But his problem is that he is taking it to absurd levels in attempting to create and describe a phenomenon that simply doesn't exist. There just isn't sufficient energy present (and he is incapable of presenting data to support it - it's just not there).

>> the field generated is extremely weak.

and so is "gravity"

you, Light, have very bad tunnel vision.

Yes, you won't find my theory anywhere else except from me.

And that makes it incorrect ?

as i said
How does 'your' understanding explain the coherence ?

I have shown for an example hurricane
"gravity' is manifest, and i gave you a value.

I really have no time for people who know nothing, and yet criticise... its easy to do, but it gains nothing.

In all fairness, I must mention that EM activity is well-known to be present in tornadoes.Do you have a source on this?

URI: Again, We can not proceed without some sort of further evidence. The theory described in Wikipedia and ellaborated very clearly by Light, do not leave any further questions: the evidence and explanations are adequate. The only way we can proceed is by contacting the organizations that I have listed above. It would be very easy to email them and post the replies.

Light: I mean do you have a source on EM related to tornado or cyclone formation and sustenance.

As a side note: interesting experience. A couple hours ago I was litening to NPR on the radio. Suddenly an extremely low-flying helicopter passed overhead and I lost all reception. Sort've just like the t.v. interference you describe?

Do you have a source on this?

URI: Again, We can not proceed without some sort of further evidence. The theory described in Wikipedia and ellaborated very clearly by Light, do not leave any further questions: the evidence and explanations are adequate. The only way we can proceed is by contacting the organizations that I have listed above. It would be very easy to email them and post the replies.

I'm very sorry to say that I don't. That was a very long time ago and there are much better ways of detection today that provide considerably (most of the time) warning times.

Perhaps another of our older members, like Baron Max, Cottontop or others will remember when that advice as passed out.

I can also tell you (again with no substantiation, I'm afraid) that my family used the method several times. And there were a few occasions when we DID see something on the screen and on two of those occasions there were actually touchdowns not too far away. Also, I had a single occasion to see a tornado at night in a completely open area (no power lines) and I clearly saw a slow, pulsing, dim blue glow that lasted for nearly four seconds. It certainly looked just like other electrical corona discharges that I've seen.

I'm terribly sorry to have to present all this in just a "first-person experience" format because I have difficulty accepting things like that myself.

I really hope someone else remembers and can come to my rescue!

you won't find my theory anywhere else except from me.

And that makes it incorrect ?


After reading this thread over, sadly, yes.

Why "sadly"??? There's absolutely no evidence to date! I've listed five organizations that anyone could easily email to to find out further evidence on this subject. Why should I have to do this after already using five hours exhausting all other sources? You could email any one of these organizations just as easily as you can post a post on these forums. Do it!

Why "sadly"??? There's absolutely no evidence to date! I've listed five organizations that anyone could easily email to to find out further evidence on this subject. Why should I have to do this after already using five hours exhausting all other sources? You could email any one of these organizations just as easily as you can post a post on these forums. Do it!

I haven't fired off any emails yet but here's the results of a very quick Google search and some links that discuss it.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_166b.html

http://umbc7.umbc.edu/~lharris/tornadoes.htm

It was called the "Weller Method" (I didn't even remember that name before) but here's a link that says it can work in theory but should NOT be relied upon and it's from NOAA:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/media/severe/weather.htm

All of that being said, these links at least establish what I said about EM activity being present.

URI: I'll try to find some email addresses tonight. If so, then I'll write something on the order of "We are doing extensive research on the formation and sustaining activities of tornados and cyclones and would like to know if you have found any indication that an electromagnetic field or magnetohydrodynamics are involved in it in anyway. Thank you." How does that sound to you? I will first do a bit more research on the subject and look over the websites you have provided.

I personally do not think that EM or MHD are involved in the formation because the initial spin is clearly caused by the Coriolis effect. This is obvious and well documented. Heat condensation and the conservation of angular momentum are the sustaining forces. Also defined are five major conditions necessary for formation:

1) warm water and warm moist air
2) a decrease in temperature with height
3) a pre-existing weather disturbance with vertical wind shear
4) a center low pressure area
5) a Coriolis effect: the strength of which varies depending on its distance from the equator and tends to move cyclones to the poles (tornados and cyclones cannot form at the equator because the Coriolis effect is too weak there)

Why "sadly"??? There's absolutely no evidence to date! I've listed five organizations that anyone could easily email to to find out further evidence on this subject. Why should I have to do this after already using five hours exhausting all other sources? You could email any one of these organizations just as easily as you can post a post on these forums. Do it!

Errr, happily? :D

I find it hard to believe that direct EM forces (other than natural atomic collisions in fluids) can play a major role in the driving force behind cyclonic disturbances.

Thanks Valich, you are a true trooper.

>> the initial spin is clearly caused by the Coriolis effect >>


yes indeed this is correct, we see spin eddies created by wind turbulence often. I have seen vertical and horizontal eddies.

Clouds rolling across the sky.
spherical "devils" scooting across the surface of the water, and running up the sand..

They are bipolar, two eyes as a focus, spinning around each other.

Once the spin is started, (given conditions I don't know about) it is magnified like in an electrostatic /magnetic circuit.

Motion (of static charged air)--->magnetism--->enhanced static----> enhanced motion..... etc

The only containment of the spin vortex is friction.

The surface field spin on Earth has a standing wave drift (curl) of 7.91 km/sec....

I do not know what the velocity of spin could be enhanced to if friction is reduced.

see Katrina, it 'oiled' the Gulf's surface water so that the next hurricane that developed in the Gulf, had a record breaking 'spin up'.

If you wish to know the mechanism, then more 'free minded' and talented people are needed for this, as i only have a cosmic theory, it works for the spin of hurricanes and cosmic matter, but that is about as far as I can go. I have not developed it enough to apply to the atmospherics of planets and the BXE configurations on the surface of planets/stars.

But we know tornadoes occur on Mars (no water) and ?hurricanes on Jupiter.... etc.

I expect the same mechanisms are occurring everywhere, if the conditions are set.

I conjecture that a high E field in the area has to exist before the positive feedback BXE cycle can start. (maybe rising hot moist air gains excessive charge...etc ), (But I do think the enhancing conditions are set in the outer reaches of space, maybe even due to the Sun's pressure)

see "Fair Weather" field to see there is a varying staticelectric potential of hundreds of thousands of volts between the ground and the ionosphere... this charge would travel, and focus etc..... I expect the causes are all high in the sky.

The forces involved are very weak, but so many players and so concentrated makes for power.

Thanks Valich for being thoughtful, rather than totally dismissive.

Light: I wasn't suggesting that you should "fire off" any emails, as I agree totally with everything you posted, and I mean't that I will now look over YOUR websites. Thanks.

URI: I think the major reason for the containment of the vortex, aside from friction, is the resulting ouside downdraft and diminishing Coriolis effect. Once the warm updrafts cool off, they need to circulate down again, both in the center and the outside. But also, the farther out it goes, the more resistance the spin would get from the outside more stationary air.

All three of these websites imply an electric or EM disturbance due to the lightning within the tornado, but not the tornado itself; however, there is reference to an "electromagnetic frequency pulse" of a tornado (2nd source):

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_166b.html
"Tornados create an electrical disturbance somewhere in the 55 megahertz range, close to the frequency band assigned to channel 2. With this phenomenon in mind, Newton Weller, an electronics technician, has devised the following method for using your TV set as a tornado warning device. Tune to channel 13 and turn the brightness control down tothe point where the image is nearly--not completely--black. Then turn to channel 2. Lightning will register as horizontal streaks on the screen. When the picture becomes bright enough to be seen, or when the screen glows with an even light, there's a tornado within 20 miles, and it's time to find Toto and head for the basement."

http://umbc7.umbc.edu/~lharris/tornadoes.htm
"Within funnel clouds, there are continuous discharges of lightning which, of course, will create an uninterrupted loud noise on the radio....The second way to detect tornadoes out of the home is through TV signals. "Channel 2 is the TV channel closest to the electromagnetic frequency of the pulse of a tornado" (Eagleman, Joe R. Thunderstorms, Tornadoes, and Building Damage. Lexington, KY: D.C. Heath and Company, 1975)."

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/media/severe/weather.htm
This website also only suggests that a TV or radio can be used to detect the lightning: "Research has shown that tornados can (and do) form when the parent cloud contains little lightning."

URI: You will be happy to read this article but I urge you to have great caution and restraint before posting anything about it as it is just one man's speculation - as you are too - and I do not know anything about his credibilty. It is pure speculation ("secret-science"?):

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/secret-science-hidden-history/Creating_the_Vortex.html

The articles describing electromagnetic dynamic forces in tornados that I have read refer to solar vortexes (from or near the sun), or due to "ball lightning" within Earth's tornado's. I will not start sending out emails.

“Twelve tornadoes, numerous funnel clouds and several hailstorms occurred during these storms. Eleven of the tornadoes appear to correlate with some type of enhancement of the recorded electromagnetic pulse rate”.
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1971)028%3C0436:ENSOSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

“There are several cases when tornado was accompanied by ball lightning. Sometime short and wide sheet lightning surround a funnel. Sometime all the surface of a funnel shines a strange yellow glow. Sometime observers describe a bluish ball-like formations like ball lightning, but much larger, visible in a cloud. Sometime a slowly moving fire columns are seen . Jones, describes a pulse generator - some center of electric activity looking as a round bright blue spot in a parent cloud appearing 30-90 minutes before a funnel.”
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/planetary/tornado.html

Question asked : Are there any indications of electromagnetic fields or magnetohydrodynamics in the formation or sustaining of tornados or cyclones?

Answer: "None whatsoever in a hurricane. Please read excellent review articles on hurricane electrification issues by Black and Hallett (1999, JAS, 56, 2004-2028)."

Frank D. Marks, Jr.
NOAA/AOML Hurricane Research Division

Valich, so may conflicting views... but you are a trooper.

LOL

Sometimes tradition (learning) restrains forward thought.

I was just applying my theories/math on spin, to terrestrial spin system.

Thanks for the info/links

I log them on my website.... just more and more info/observations.

Valich, you found the mother load....

Just what my analysis would say..... however this still leaves the conditions for formation open.

Is it "Sun" induced electrical pressure or is the electrical pressure a local effect caused by excessive heat in a region (maybe due to local terrain focusing the heat).

Afterall there is "Tornado Alley".

Hurricanes are a little different, due to the diamagnetic ring.

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/Dark_Matter_and_the_Expanding_Universe.html

see image
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/images/1991-01-a-full_jpg.jpg

>> The most remarkable feature is a distinctive twisted ladder
structure produced by two spiral filaments of plasma. The pair of strands
are separated by about 500 light-years. (NASA photo)>>>


Note in a cylinder, two foci are present, twisting (spinning) around each other.


"Attractive gravity" is an illusion, IMO... matter actually repells matter, unless it is forcefully pushed together.

'Gravity' is the resultant of toroidal Poynting vectors.
IMO

Peter Thomson, as I said, is purely speculating (much as science fiction does), that it would also apply to tornados: it does not. It applies to the sun because the surface of the sun is a plasma, not water. A plasma is an "ionized" gas, or molten metal, and has a positive electric charge to begin with that makes it readily respond to magnetic fields and is highly electrically conductive. Peter Thonpson is "experimenting with charged sheath vortexes, which self-organize into plasmas," posts his theories on his own home-made website, and as far as I can find he is not affiliated with any university or scientific organization.

I asked that you exercise extreme caution and restraint before posting anything related to his article: but you did not. His theory DOES NOT apply to tornados or cyclones. You posted the diagram on Wikipedia's magentohydronamics page. Water is not a plasma: big difference here. If you go under their Wikipedia's plasma page you will see the exact same diagram with a full explanation of what plasmas are and why they so readily behave to electromagnetism: they already are great conductors of electricity. If you look more closely at the diagram, it does not even really look like a tornado because the diameter of the top is same as the bottom: there is no cone shape as most tornados have due to the water circulation.

Again:

Question asked : Are there any indications of electromagnetic fields or magnetohydrodynamics in the formation or sustaining of tornados or cyclones?

Answer: "None whatsoever in a hurricane. Please read excellent review articles on hurricane electrification issues by Black and Hallett (1999, JAS, 56, 2004-2028)."

Frank D. Marks, Jr.
NOAA/AOML Hurricane Research Division

[B]The only thing I've ever heard about such things are the crack-pot theories that come out of the blue every time there's a big outbreak, with folks maintaining that electromagnetic vorticies cause tornados. An elementary analysis will show you that even assuming continuous lightning, any possible electromagnetic forcing on a tornado is at least 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic energy in the wind, & so has no influence at all.

That tornados may (or may not) have a detectable radio signal is more likely, & this is what is referred to as the "frequency pulse" of the tornado. For this to occur, charged particles would have to "clump" together & be advected as a whole around the storm. I think this is not very likely, but it could occur for a short time, leading to "pulsing" RF noise that arises from the accelleration of non-uniform charge about the tornado vortex.

Robert A. Black

Research Meteorologist 4301 Rickenbacker Cswy.
NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL 33149-1026

Ph: (305) 361-4314
FAX: (305) 361-4528 (NEW)
E-Mail: Robert.A.Black@noaa.gov[B]

The only thing I've ever heard about such things are the crack-pot theories that come out of the blue every time there's a big outbreak, with folks maintaining that electromagnetic vorticies cause tornados. An elementary analysis will show you that even assuming continuous lightning, any possible electromagnetic forcing on a tornado is at least 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic energy in the wind, & so has no influence at all.

That tornados may (or may not) have a detectable radio signal is more likely, & this is what is referred to as the "frequency pulse" of the tornado. For this to occur, charged particles would have to "clump" together & be advected as a whole around the storm. I think this is not very likely, but it could occur for a short time, leading to "pulsing" RF noise that arises from the accelleration of non-uniform charge about the tornado vortex.

Again, Peter Thompson is a crack-pot. He is not even creating vortexes out of water! He's using a sheath that then develops into a plasma, not water, and he admits that! Very seldom does he even use the word tornado except at the very end of his papers where he says something on the order of that this is his "possible view or explanation."

With regard to plasmas, there is some research - again, could be just science fiction - in developing a ray gun that is sometimes called a tornado gun. There is also an fighter aircraft called the Tornado and I'm sure that its exhaust gases also create a plasma vortex.

The only conflicting view is your's.

I will be receiving more replies from scientific associations and agencies over the next few days when they are forwarded to the appropriate departments.

Plasma Vortexes (vortices): see magnetohydrodynamics MHD.

Plasma defined: an ionized gas where at least one electron has been removed from a significant fraction of the molecules. The free electric charges make the plasma electrically conductive so that it couples strongly to electromagnetic fields.

Common Plasmas: fluorescent lamps (low energy lighting), neon signs, an arc welder, flames, lightning, the ionosphere, the polar aurorae, the Sun, stars.

Plasma Temperatures: a cold plasma is typically several thousand degrees. A hot plasma, such as the Sun (10,340 degrees Fahrenheit).

Plasma Sheath: an electrostatic sheath, called a Debye sheath, where a plasma contacts a material surface.

>> The only conflicting view is your's >>>

indeed, and that warms my heart. Thanks

I see all matter as a plasma, some just less electric that others.

Water was proposed as a medium for magnetohydrodynamic electricity production, some time ago.

A plasma really is something that carries charge, IMO. Some plasmas are contained (frozen), some can flow.... no difference really

So you see, I will always be on the outside of this.... even if all the observable evidence is easily explainable by ESGT..... but like Peter Thompson, I maintain my secrets until I publish, LOL.

Thanks Valich, your efforts have extended my model to the ground level

and I do not mind being called a crackpot, because my results are so accurate that they can't be wrong. Even down to explaining observed anomalies of established models.

Ta, mate.

Peter Thompson is a true nutcase who started his own website, likes to write, and just keeps on adding and adding to it from there. Check out his home page to see what he mostly does: mostly writing novels, life on Mars, vegetarian diets, romantic novels, "hidden history, "coral castles", "How many people did it take to build pyramids." He's a kook. And he even includes a picture of himself draped in a black robe, supposedly holding something that looks like a rolled-up degree to make him look like a scholar, but really makes him look more like Dracula. What a phoney nutcase!

If you check out his homepage on tornados "Introduction to," he starts out by stating the erroneous assumption that "two particles of the same electrical charge moving in parallel will develop a force of attraction."

A plasma is an ionized gas: not a "frozen" whatever you are talking about. Are you sure that you're not confusing physic's plasma with frozen blood plasma???

Earth to base here?

[QUOTE=URI my results are so accurate that they can't be wrong. Even down to explaining observed anomalies of established models.[/QUOTE]
YOU HAVE NO RESULTS!!! Post the details of your experiments!

>> you're not confusing physic's plasma with frozen blood plasma???


LOL, Oh my past is catching up with me.

>> YOU HAVE NO RESULTS!!!

Peter Thompson may be a nut case..... That does not stop me picking up bits and pieces. I am not. I am a qualified serious researcher, I fear not when I walk into pseudoscience.... afterall what I pick up is what I consider integrates into my world picture. My path has shown me that much that is established is very shakey underneath. But true, all people consider me a nut case......

>> the erroneous assumption that "two particles of the same electrical charge moving in parallel will develop a force of attraction." >>

I am not too sure of this, I know that some similar phenomenon exists with moving charges...... ?

>> Post the details of your experiments! >>

Valich

This is where the whole castle falls down.... I won't at this stage of my life..

I am really sorry about this, I was open once, because I needed help and I needed reassurance, and I thought others could extend the logic and make something really crude, much more beautiful and useful.

I did REALLY think scientists would help each other, instead I have found a sad truth

The people of the net forums are an incestuous bunch of big heads, that will destroy anything not status quo.... they are basically unable to step outside the rote.

I set up a forum to find seriously minded talented people.....

LOL..... I think I prefer to be a loner in this day and age.

Think of me as you will, I am beyond needing other people's endorsement.

Maybe you might like to read

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/mag/node10.html

>> Thus, wire #1 will be attracted towards wire #2. (same direction of travel)

>> It is a good exercise to show that if the wires were carrying currents in the opposite directions that the resulting forces will have the same magnitude as in Eq.(1.11) but are such as to cause a repulsion between the wires.>>

http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c14_forcewires.html
[nice Java applet]
<< By the right-hand rule, a current out of the page in a field up gives a force to the left. Two parallel wires carrying currents in the same direction attract one another; wires with currents going in opposite directions repel. >>

I am a qualified serious researcher, I fear not when I walk into pseudoscienceProve this. What are your credentials? What is your research? I stuck up for you and have spent probably over tens hours of valuable time in researching this matter. You have been provided with extremely ADEQUATE explanations that leave no gaps. Now, the 30-some emails that I have sent out to tornado and cyclone researchers are coming back with replies that all say you are wrong! Are you saying that you know more than ALL these highly educated, trained, and experienced professionals?

Stop being such a whimpering idiot and admit that you're hypothesis - not theory - is incorrect. We have and are showing that. You are clearly wrong beyond ANY doubt! If you are a researcher, then as I stated above:

Post the details of your experiments and the results!

"A cyclone [or a hurricane as they are called in the Atlantic] is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity. Its primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes, the heat ultimately derived from the sun. Therefore, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the orbital revolution and gravity of the Earth. Continued condensation leads to higher winds, continued evaporation, and continued condensation, feeding back into itself. This gives rise to factors that give the system enough energy to be self-sufficient and cause a positive feedback loop where it can draw more energy as long as the source of heat, warm water, remains. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The orbital revolution of the Earth causes the system to spin, giving it a cyclone characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm.

The factors to form a tropical cyclone include a pre-existing weather disturbance, warm tropical oceans, moisture, and relatively light winds aloft. If the right conditions persist and allow it to create a feedback loop by maximizing the energy intake possible, for example, such as high winds to increase the rate of evaporation, they can combine to produce the violent winds, incredible waves, torrential rains, and floods associated with this phenomenon.

Condensation as a driving force is what primarily distinguishes tropical cyclones from other meteorological phenomena, and because this is strongest in a tropical climate, this defines the initial domain of the tropical cyclone. By contrast, mid-latitude cyclones, for example, draw their energy mostly from pre-existing horizontal temperature gradients in the atmosphere. In order to continue to drive its heat engine, a tropical cyclone must remain over warm water, which provides the atmospheric moisture needed. The condensation of this moisture is driven by the high winds and reduced atmospheric pressure in the storm, resulting in a sustaining cycle. As a result, when a tropical cyclone passes over land, its strength diminishes rapidly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes

Question asked : Are there any indications of electromagnetic fields or magnetohydrodynamics in the formation or sustaining of tornados or cyclones?

Answer: "None whatsoever in a hurricane. Please read excellent review articles on hurricane electrification issues by Black and Hallett (1999, JAS, 56, 2004-2028)."

Frank D. Marks, Jr.
NOAA/AOML Hurricane Research Division

The only thing I've ever heard about such things are the crack-pot theories that come out of the blue every time there's a big outbreak, with folks maintaining that electromagnetic vorticies cause tornados. An elementary analysis will show you that even assuming continuous lightning, any possible electromagnetic forcing on a tornado is at least 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic energy in the wind, & so has no influence at all.

That tornados may (or may not) have a detectable radio signal is more likely, & this is what is referred to as the "frequency pulse" of the tornado. For this to occur, charged particles would have to "clump" together & be advected as a whole around the storm. I think this is not very likely, but it could occur for a short time, leading to "pulsing" RF noise that arises from the accelleration of non-uniform charge about the tornado vortex.

Robert A. Black
Research Meteorologist 4301 Rickenbacker Cswy.
NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL 33149-1026
Ph: (305) 361-4314
FAX: (305) 361-4528 (NEW)
E-Mail: Robert.A.Black@noaa.gov[B]

The only thing I've ever heard about such things are the crack-pot theories that come out of the blue every time there's a big outbreak, with folks maintaining that electromagnetic vorticies cause tornados. An elementary analysis will show you that even assuming continuous lightning, any possible electromagnetic forcing on a tornado is at least 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic energy in the wind, & so has no influence at all.

That tornados may (or may not) have a detectable radio signal is more likely, & this is what is referred to as the "frequency pulse" of the tornado. For this to occur, charged particles would have to "clump" together & be advected as a whole around the storm. I think this is not very likely, but it could occur for a short time, leading to "pulsing" RF noise that arises from the accelleration of non-uniform charge about the tornado vortex.

Robert A. Black
Research Meteorologist 4301 Rickenbacker Cswy.
NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL 33149-1026
Ph: (305) 361-4314
FAX: (305) 361-4528 (NEW)
E-Mail: Robert.A.Black@noaa.gov[B]

That is good information, Valich. And his comment about the frequency pulse "could occur for a short time" bears out exactly what I was saying earlier. It happens at times but not dependable enough to even try relying on. Back during the period of time when we were being advised to use it, there was NO other means at all of detecting one - especially at night when you couldn't see anything - an no means in place to rapidly distribute warnings even if one had been spotted nearby. So, even as unreliable as it was, it was still just a bit better than having absolutely nothing.

I certainly would not have relied on it but it could be compared to having a single sentential who might be able to sound the alert if the enemy just happened to come by his solitary location. ;)

>> especially at night when you couldn't see anything -


well there goes the heat explanation.

What have you guys got left ?

>> especially at night when you couldn't see anything -


well there goes the heat explanation.

What have you guys got left ?

What do you mean, URI, "there goes the heat explanation"? Do you mean to say that you are unaware that the surface waters of the Atlantic are still warm at night and driving a hurricane?????

Or are you also unaware that warm, moist fronts (and heat retention by the Earth) does not still exist at night which drives (in conjunction with a cold front) tornadoes?????

Of course they do! And it's still plain old heat that produces and drives both types of storms under discussion here.

Just what do you claim to be thinking when you made that statement??

>> Do you mean to say that you are unaware that the surface waters of the Atlantic are still warm at night and driving a hurricane????? >>

I was referring to Tornadoes... mate

Hurricane have the ring to sustain them, tornadeos don't.

and yet tornadoes occur at night.......

Sorry but conventional hand waving doesn't stir me at all.

as an aside the sun's surface is seen to create 'tornadeo-like' disturbances

>> have spent probably over tens hours of valuable time in researching this matter.

Sorry Valich

I thought this was a discussion forum.

Have you learnt anything from your searches other than I am an idiot ?

good, have you enjoyed this topic, I have and I have enjoyed your manner, up until ... well, I see you are upset

But really what is this mechanism, where is the math... surely all these professionals could do more than just hand wave......

All I have done is apply ESGT to these spin systems, and it all comes out OK
even to the math and value that contains the integrity of the spin (which should really fly apart)

The spin creates gravity, as it does throughout the Universe. I even calculated the value for a defined system......

shrug.....

>> Do you mean to say that you are unaware that the surface waters of the Atlantic are still warm at night and driving a hurricane????? >>

I was referring to Tornadoes... mate

Hurricane have the ring to sustain them, tornadeos don't.

and yet tornadoes occur at night.......

Sorry but conventional hand waving doesn't stir me at all.

as an aside the sun's surface is seen to create 'tornadeo-like' disturbances

Forget your "aside", we're not discussing the surface of the sun.

All I can say is that you obviously know less about meteorology than probably the average individual does. Some great "researcher" that makes you! HA!

The vast majority of tornadoes in the U.S. actually are spawned in the late afternoon and evening when heating effects are at the greatest. And it's been long known that they are produced by colliding masses of warm, moist air with a colder, drier air mass - the exact same things that produce thunderstorms.

You have now fallen into exactly the same pit as Buddah1. By these last two posts (and several others) you have clearly proven yourself to also be a complete fraud and liar. You are NOT a "serious researcher" - in fact, you aren't even a decent amateur researcher. You have conducted NO experiments, you have NOT provided any credentials as Valich requested - because you have NO credentials of any kind! Your so-called "theory" isn't even a theory at all - it's purely a product of your uneducated mind and is totally bunk!

Both Valich and I have provided information and links that disputeevery single claim you have ever made.

And so now you stand here before the world totally exposed for what you really are: a liar, a fraud, a fool and an idiot. Just like Buddah1, your own words expose and condemn you!

LOL

>> provided information and links that disputeevery single claim you have ever made.>>

and they say nothing other than hand waving.....except, lol, yes tornadeos and hurricanes really do occur !!!!! yes really they do.

The heat at night is just air temperature < 40 C (usually 30 C or a lot less)..... the radiant heat from the Sun during the day > 80 C (could be 90+C in places )

If you want a heat engine, you better look to day time......



whatever..... when the abuse starts the discussion ends, and it just shows that y'all are way out of your depth.

cya

I consider this exploration closed, thanks for all the fish.

LOL

>> provided information and links that disputeevery single claim you have ever made.>>

and they say nothing other than hand waving.....except, lol, yes tornadeos and hurricanes really do occur !!!!! yes really they do.

The heat at night is just air temperature < 40 C (usually 30 C or a lot less)..... the radiant heat from the Sun during the day > 80 C (could be 90+C in places )

If you want a heat engine, you better look to day time......



whatever..... when the abuse starts the discussion ends, and it just shows that y'all are way out of your depth.

cya

I consider this exploration closed, thanks for all the fish.

Right! Tuck tail and run again (as you did in other threads). You aren't fooing anyone , dummy!

Roflmao!

URI: As much as I hate to say it, you are proving yourself to be an excellent example of a pig-headed brick that just refuses to change and learn no matter what facts we find and put forth. Yes, by all means, please remain "hidden" with your "secret science" as it is becoming an obnoxious burden to this forum and interfering with its progress.

We were talking about the frequency pulses being radio impulses rather than what one person tried to refer to as electromagnetic pulses. And then, just out of no where, your reply was:

"Where there goes the heat explanation."

We are talking about two entirely definite aspects of a tornado. I think some people beleived that they were electromagnetic because of the bluish tint ball lightning that sometimes occurs within tornadoes originating from the above or surrounding thunderstorm clouds.

Radio signal frequency pulses that may (or may not) be emitted by a tornado have absolutely nothing at all to a to do with a tornado's formation and sustaining power, nor does it have anything to do with spin gravity. Cite your sources on spin gravity related to tornados. Spin gravity is something that they are trying to artificially develop in space to produce a gravitational effect to counteract the weightlessness that astronauts endure.

Then, even before, you post a rebuttal about my pointing out how the Thompson nutcase begins his science fiction tornado article by stating that two electrons moving in parallel attract by referring to the flow of electricity along a wire? Do you even now how electric current is produced and travels along a wire: through repulsion of the electrons in the outer shells of the molecules? That's why copper and other metals, and ionized plasmas, are good conductors of electricity, but water is not. This is why they produces EM, but water does not. This is why plasma produces EM and MHD, but water does not.

Light: Thank you for stepping in and TRYING to make this man understand a little bit as I was getting just too frustrated with his ignorance. And by ignorance, I am not implying stupidity, I am implying "ignoring" what is posted by professionals (you didn't even read it), ignoring the facts, and totally ignoring all the excellent complete explanations that have been given. To me, I see no gaps in the processes involved in the formation and sustaining forces of tornados and cyclones, and certainly no need to propose EM, MHD, and spin gravity in a medium where these forces do not even exist.

Here I am, spending countless hours trying to see if there is any evidence whatsoever in what URI is saying, giving him the benefit of a doubt, and when I posted the replies and researched facts by extremely knowledgeable, educated, and of the utmost experienced professionals in the field, it's like he doesn't even read them: it's all just being ignored. Why am I wasting my time with someone who won't even listen?

Education is lifelong learning and you have to be open to other views, especially when those views are much more tenable than your own. Please do what Light says. Please just:

"Tuck tail and run again (as you did in other threads). You aren't fooling anyone!"

Parting pic

http://www.eis.noaa.gov/NNVLfolder/isabelsep12-1245zA.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/08.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/09.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/10.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/11.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/12.jpg

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional%20Hurricane_optimized/13.jpg

Standard Description

URI: Thank you for the detailed pictures. They support the most current hypotheses about the formation and sustaining of tornados and hurricanes that we have to date, and this is what we have been posting.

Again, I ask you to exercise restraint in posting whacky theories or making reference to the Peter Thompson kook without further empirical evidence. Also, please try to avoid the multiple (double, triple, quadruple) double and triple spaced postings as they take up precious forum space that readers then have to wade through to get to meaningful facts. As a scientist or researcher, use single space, concisely worded paragraphs, and cite your sources.

I have received an email (author requests anonymity) that states, "If a tornado were a spinning vortex of plasma, then the electromagnetic field would drown out the already detected lightning."This supports exactly what Dr. Robert Black of the NOAA has stated in his reply email posted above.

Also, there is some reference made to "research papers done on behalf of the US Air Force on plasma effects, and these sources clearly attribute many plasma effects to tornoadoes." The source of this statement is highly questionable; however, I am now contacting the US Air Force, Air Force Weather (AFW) to see if they know of any such paper.

In any case, the comment refers to an "effect" that a tornado may have on plasmas, AND NOT that a tornado consists of a plasma. Or, what is much more likely is that this person is doing the same thing that you are, i.e., incorrectly applying the word "tornado" to "plasma vortexes." These are two completely different types of vortexes with completely different types of formation factors, shapes, attractive forces, and material composition.

The important points in the articles below are:
1) The rate of lightning activity decreases with a tornado touchdown.
2) "Most tornadic storms (80% or more) have an increase in total flash rates near the time of the tornado.
3) "The increase in total flash rates is often dominated by intracloud flashes.”
4) In one study 6 out of 42 thunderstorms exhibited a polarity reversal during tornado formation or touchdown.
5) The total number of flashes associated with each storm had no correlation with tornadogenesis.

"we acquired lightning and Doppler radar data on two tornados. The mesocyclone were measured with an L-band radar. In both storms, there was no clear relationship between tornado occurrence and ground flash rates of the storm as a whole, but the stroke rate of each storm was highest after it stopped producing tornadoes..... Intracloud lightning flash rates reached a peak of almost 14 min−1 approximately 10 min after the peak in cyclonic shear at the 6 km level and at the same time as the peak in cyclonic shear at the 1.5 km level. The peak in intracloud rates also occurred 5–10 min after the peak in the area within 40 and 45 dBZ contours at the 8 km level and at about the same time as the peak in the area within 50 dBZ contours at 8 km and within 40 dBZ at 6 km. However, ground flash rates in the mesocyclone region were usually less than 1 min−1 during periods when intracloud rates were high and were negatively correlated with cyclonic shear at both 1.5 and 6 km. The ground flash rate was the last parameter to peak, approximately 15 min after intracloud lightning and a few minutes after the latest reflectivity area (the area having >55 dBZ at the 1 km level).

We suggest that intracloud rates were governed, in part, by particle interactions during the growth in reflectivity at 7–9 km and, in part, by some process associated with the evolution of cyclonic shear at low altitudes. Earlier studies of tornado storms indicate that the evolution of updrafts and downdrafts affects the evolution of both reflectivity and low-altitude cyclonic shear and so, as in previous storm studies, updraft evolution will affect intracloud rates. We suggest that the peaks in ground flash rates resulted from increasing the distance between the main positive and negative charge centers, from the sedimentation of negative charge to lower altitudes, or from the generation or advection of positive charge below the main negative charge....1) most tornadic storms (80% or more) have an increase in total flash rates near the time of the tornado, and 2) the increase in total flash rates is often dominated by intracloud flashes.”

Source: “Lightning Rates Relative to Tornadic Storm Evolution on 22 May 1981,” by Donald R. MacGorman, et al., Journal of Atmospheric Sciences: Vol46,No2, pp221–251.
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1989)046%3C0221:LRRTTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2


“Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning patterns were analyzed in 42 violent tornado-producing (F4, F5) supercells that occurred between January 1989 and November 1992. The purpose of this analysis was to identify potential correlations between CG lightning patterns and tornadogenesis. Thirty-one of the storms were characterized by a peak in CG flash rate preceding tornado formation; 20 storms displayed a decrease in CG flash activity coincident with tornado touchdown. Six of the 42 storms exhibited a polarity reversal, from positive to negative, in the sign of the charge lowered to ground. Storms exhibiting a majority of positive flashes were generally associated with long-track tornadoes, F5 damage ratings, or severe weather outbreak conditions. The total number of flashes associated with each storm had no correlation with tornadogenesis (total number of flashes ranged from 16 to 3394).

Based on this analysis, it appears that using CG lightning flash patterns exclusively to detect tornado formation is not practical. The amplitudes of the flash rate changes are too variable to be used as a prognostic tool. The flash rate trends do, however, suggest a recurring relationship to tornado formation. Therefore when used in conjunction with other operational tools, CG flash rate analysis may provide additional information useful in identifying changes in thunderstorm intensity.”

Source: “Characteristics of Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Associated with Violent Tornadoes,” by Perez, Antony H., Wicker, Louis J., Orville, Richard E, Weather and Forecasting, Vol.12 Is.3 pp.428-437. http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0434&volume=012&issue=03&page=0428

>> an "effect" that a tornado may have on plasmas, AND NOT that a tornado consists of a plasma : Valich >>>

Did I ever refer to tornadoes as "plasmas" in your definition of plasma ? No that would be ludicrous..... I said that electrical conditions (E field) [?ionosphere to ground] interacts with the Earth's B field to produce a vortex that then induces its own gravity (directed towards the centre ). The spin induces a positive feedback on the system. Peter Thompson's article just highlighted a "similar" manifestation of a vortex. In your definition, salt crystals are not a plasma, and neither is water droplets, but the key is that they all hold charge, and moving charges create a magnetic component that will form a spiral vortex. I am sorry if my 'words' imply different meanings to your 'words'. But I am tired of the innuendoes flying a foul.Keep your spin, I have mine, and I can control my spin. condensed enough ?.... lousy to read... as if spaces take up space.

I am not making any accusations: only trying to prevent someone from "jumping" to any erroneous unrelated conclusions through misinterpretations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Superzelle_schema.jpg/800px-Superzelle_schema.jpg

Hurricanes can be modelled using a conventional vortex. But because a vortex has infinite velocity at its core pure vortices do not exist. Hence the center of a hurricane is modelled as a rigid body in rotation, surrounded by a conventional vortex. This model represents what is happening really. The rigid body is the central column of a hurricane.

For a rigid body in rotation the velocity at the center is zero. Hence at the eye of the hurricane it is calm. It has low pressure and pulling air toward it, therefore the surrounding air is in rotation, similar to planets revolving round the sun but not falling into it.

As for the humid condition