Is it Possible to Stop a Tornado with Explosives?

[Dennmann57]

I have an idea for you on defusing or dissipating tornados.

I thought that a sufficiently large explosion at the right time and place in the interior of a tornado funnel about to touch down would force the tornado to collapse and render it harmless. It could be delivered by ballistic or cruise missile, and I believe we have very powerful non-nuclear bombs at our disposal.

Even if only those tornados headed towards populated areas could be defused or weakened, a great saving in life and property could be realized.
My condolences to all the victims in Oklahoma.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Welcome to PF;
You are thinking of disrupting the wind patterns that make the tornado?

A big tornado like the one that just hit Oklahoma is driven by atomic-bomb levels energy - the energy system driving the funnel you see has built up over a long time and covers a wide area. You would definitely need nuclear weapon levels of explosives before the tornado would even notice.

Then there is the problem of delivery - it takes a missile some time to reach it's target and the touchdown point is very hard to predict. You'd be better to try to disrupt the patter as it builds - but even then... see above. If you could figure how to get it to work - there may be an advantage in having the destruction occur someplace we choose.

However, it is not clear how a bomb would actually help - I'd expect the energy of a nuclear bomb, particularly at the touchdown point, would just make things worse. You could try blowing up lots of them around the tornado hoping to draw the winds away ... but I would expect the tornado to reform since the forces bringing it into existence are still there - only now it's radioactive.

It's a popular question online.

 

[davenn]

and finally the explosion, chemical or nuclear is likely to do just as much damage as the tornado
so ... pretty pointless

Dave

 

[Dennmann57]

I suppose as our radar tracking gets better, we might have a chance in the future, but I see what you mean about needing an atomic weapon for a monster like the one that just hit Oklahoma. Thanks for the input.

 

[Banquo]

You can't use atomic bombs to destroy a powerful tornado. Even if it worked, the results in terms of heat and blast damage and long-term atmospheric radiation pollution would be equally devastating. An anti-tornado 'barrier' that starves a tornado heading towards a city of inrush energy and so deflects its path would be very expensive but might just work - except for any tornado that touches down within the protected zone. The best and least costly solution I can think of is simply tornado proof buildings - shallow, smooth-surfaced reinforced concrete domes that offer no resistance and so remain unscathed as a tornado passes over it.

 

[Simon Bridge]

and finally the explosion, chemical or nuclear is likely to do just as much damage as the tornado
so ... pretty pointless

There may be a percentage in controlling where the damage occurs though - if it came to a choice between a tornado ripping through a city and a bomb stopping the tornado outside the city...

@Banquo: welcome to PF;
You are right - tornado-proof buildings are probably cheaper, certainly than the nuke option ... though I notice that the main reason many homes in the path of the recent one did not have tornado shelters or proofing was simply that the owners couldn't afford it.
Sometimes it is a matter of who does the paying.

But I think the original question has been answered.

 

[Solkar]

Tornado schematics

German wikipedia has good schematics of a tornado:

(click on image for larger version)

Credits:
Created by Michael Graf / Michael81 in 2006
Public Domain, according to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Superzelle_schema.gif

Translation (mine) ordered following label positions; clockwise starting at 12:00:

• "Superzelle von Süden her betrachtet" = supercell seen from the south
• "Konvektives Überschiessen" ~= convective excess
• "Rotierender Aufwind" = rotating updraft
• "Eiskristallwolken" = ice crystal clouds
• "Gleichgewichtsniveau" = level of equilibrium
• "Mammatuswolken" = mammatus(?) clouds
• "Niederschlagsfallstreifen" = virga
• "verdunstender Niederschlag" = evaporating precipitation
• "Kondensationsniveau" = level of condensation
• "Warmluft" = warm air
• "Regenfreie Wolkenbasis" = rain-free cloud base
• "Zugrichtung" ~= direction of movement / direction of motion
• "Pseudokaltfront" = pseudo cold front
• "Kaltluft" = cold air
• "Fallstreifen" =~ (lit.) fall stripes
• "Niederschlagsfallstreifen" = virga
• "Auf- und Abwinde" = up- and downdrafts
• "Mammatuswolken" = mammatus(?) clouds
• "Eiskristallwolken" = ice crystal clouds

 

[Ophiolite]

An alternative approach would be to release butterflies. No, I'm not crazy - it's a metaphor.

Many of of you will be familiar with the poster child of chaos theory, the Brazilian butterfly that, with one flap of its wings so changes the dynamics of the airflow that ultimately a hurricane is triggered in the Caribbean.

Specifically, at some point in the future our understanding of tornadoes, our modelliing software speeds and our sensors will be of a sufficient calibre to anticipate what initial conditions need to be disrupted, in a small way, to forestall tornado formation. At that time Dennmann57's proposal may become practical.

 

[VantagePoint72]

Many of of you will be familiar with the poster child of chaos theory, the Brazilian butterfly that, with one flap of its wings so changes the dynamics of the airflow that ultimately a hurricane is triggered in the Caribbean.

Specifically, at some point in the future our understanding of tornadoes, our modelliing software speeds and our sensors will be of a sufficient calibre to anticipate what initial conditions need to be disrupted, in a small way, to forestall tornado formation. At that time Dennmann57's proposal may become practical.

You have it exactly backwards: that is the opposite conclusion that chaos theory implies. The point of the butterfly effect is that chaotic systems are dependent on such tiny changes to their initial conditions that long time/large scale forecasting is impossible. There is always a degree of experimental uncertainty and, in chaotic systems, this uncertainty (however slight) is enough to severely limit your ability to predict the system's behaviour because of how rapidly the uncertainty grows.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/25/giant-walls-tornado-alley/5808887/

An amusing article about a physicist who wants to build 1000' tall walls across the midwest to stop tornadoes, and the meteorologists who scorn him.

 

[SteamKing]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/25/giant-walls-tornado-alley/5808887/

An amusing article about a physicist who wants to build 1000' tall walls across the midwest to stop tornadoes, and the meteorologists who scorn him.

At only $60 billion per 100 miles of wall, why use stone or other material when you can just use gold?

In any event, the previous idea about using a nuclear detonation to disrupt a tornado is a non-starter for an entirely non-technical reason: such an explosion would violate the Limited Test Ban Treaty signed by the US and other nations in 1963. The treaty prohibits testing of nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, under water, or in outer space.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm

 

[Vanadium 50]

It could be delivered by ballistic or cruise missile

Average economic impact of a tornado: $300,000
Cost of a cruise missile: $1,400,000

 

[Evo]

How do you know if a tornado will form? And if one does form, they are usually very short lived, and the blast from a missile if it's over a densely populated area?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Average economic impact of a tornado: $300,000
Cost of a cruise missile: $1,400,000

Where are you getting those figures?

iirc. The 1.4mil price tag belongs to the tomahawk cruise missile
There are other kinds - the cost sans warhead can go below half that (still too high) but what you are really looking for is some kind of UAV capable of not crashing before it gets sucked into the tornado right? The technology in the typical cruise missile is way overkill.

Tornado season results in damages in the billions:
\http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/Tornado-Damage.htm

But estimating the impact on the economy is tricky
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1880

Certainly you wouldn't want to spend UD$0.5 - 1.4M on every tornado - but maybe it is a good idea for the really big ones like in Oklahoma last year?

Provided of course that the damages from using an effective tornado buster is not worse than the tornado.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Some of these things remind me of the stories about the town that builds a tall wall around it's borders to keep the birds from migrating or the people who build a building without windows so the light cannot escape at night only to discover they forgot to put any light into begin with so they try trucking it inside in wheelbarrows... those sorts of stories.

 

[D H]

Average economic impact of a tornado: $300,000
Cost of a cruise missile: $1,400,000

Cost of the 2011 Alabama tornados: $3,740,000,000
Cost of the 2011 Joplin Missouri tornado: 2,800,000,000
Cost of the 2013 Moore Oklahoma tornado: $2,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000

We don't have to get every single tornado. Just the ones that cost a whole lot.

That said, tossing a nuke at a supercell isn't exactly a brilliant idea.

 

[.Scott]

A bomb won't work - but I don't thing any of these posts really hits the important reason.

My experience on this matter is based on the meteorological material that I was required to study to get my pilots license, study beyond that, and certainly from my experience as a pilot watching thunderstorms develop first hand.

Cumulonimbus clouds form from an unstable air mass. When a parcel of air is moved upward, it expands and experiences adiabatic cooling. Its exact response is also influenced by its moisture content. Once the parcel of air has been displaced upward, its new density can be compared to the density of the air that it just moved into. If it is heavier it will move back downward - thus the air mass is stable. But if it becomes lighter than the surrounding air, then the air mass is referred to as "unstable" and the air parcel will continue to move up.

As the sun bakes the ground during the day, the lower parts of the atmosphere are heated and begin to rise. This changes the vertical temperature and moisture profile of the air mass and during the summer, and generally make it less stable. With enough direct sun, the effects on the air can be easily seen from a small plane climbing in flight. If you keep a sharp eye out for sky color, you will notice that at certain altitude you will break through the haze layer - and the sky will shift from whitish to a strong blue.

Of course, the other effect you see is the development of cumulus clouds from infrequent small fluffy things (perfect for sail planes) to more and more massive and taller structures. Each one of those clouds is generated from a rising column of air. If anyone of these air columns creates a rain cloud, with perhaps considerable ground resistance, it will partially "spoil" the air in that area - sapping some of its energy - making it more stable. The actual formation of a cumulonimbus cloud occurs when one of these columns is able to build up in a larger and larger area of unstable air.

So, what would a bomb do. For the most part, it would add energy to the air mass. Not something that would help.

As for trying to stop these things before they get started... Flying through an area of rising cumulus clouds, you are in a target rich environment. In an area destined for the formation of thunderheads, every couple of thousand feet you will find another 7,000+ foot cumulus tower that could be the next thunderhead. And you wouldn't want to stop the ones that cause a little rain showers, because they're helping you by draining moisture from the air - unless it's one that's in a clear path to more and more unstable air.

 

[Simon Bridge]

So, what would a bomb do. For the most part, it would add energy to the air mass. Not something that would help.

I think the core idea is not so much to randomly nuke tornadoes but create a large pressure difference to disrupt the air mass... hopefully disorganizing it long enough that the conditions for formation pass.

It's a bit like the idea of using high explosive to put out a fire - it looks like you are just adding more energy to the area the fire is in but, carefully placed, the energy from the blast need not add to the fires energy.
In detail: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=370808

However we are talking about disrupting a "long-lived" tornado - typically forming within a supercell thunderstorm - hopefully shortening the life-cycle of an existing one and so minimizing the possible damage. I think that's very "hopeful".

Big explosions can be pretty disruptive - you don't want to try flying near a nuclear blast either - but whether they can get big enough to disrupt a big tornado? That would be an interesting experiment - I'd like to see anyone get it past an ethics committee though. Other methods that have been considered include large conventional explosions and large blocks of dry ice. The main problem appears to have been deployment.

NSSL talks about this topic in their tornado FAQ.
https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/tornadoes/faq/

You have to consider that the tornado is part of something bigger: the supercell thunderstorm. Unless you disrupt the supercell thunderstorm itself, you would likely have another tornado, even if you were able to destroy the first. The thunderstorm's energy is much greater than the tornado. No one has tried to disrupt the tornado because the methods to do so could likely cause even more damage than the tornado. Detonating a hydrogen bomb, for example, to disrupt a tornado would be even more deadly and destructive than the tornado itself. Lesser things (like huge piles of dry ice or smaller conventional weaponry) would be too hard to deploy in the right place fast enough, and would likely not have enough impact to affect the tornado much anyway.​

... the site seems to be a decent 1st stop if you want to know about tornadoes and tornado research.

BTW: related thread from 2010 on the question of preventing Tornadoes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=318460

 

[.Scott]

That "supercell" is an oversize cumulonimbus cloud, an engine that feeds off unstable air. At it's core is a rising column of air - which can become one or more tornadoes.

Once the cumulonimbus has formed, trying to kill it with a bomb would be like trying to keep water from flowing down the drain with a bomb. You can make a big splash, but the water will come right back to the drain. In this case, warm moist air is draining into the upper atmosphere - and it can form a drain anywhere.

All that being said, tornado alley in southern US is a unique area where tornadoes form which much greater occurrence than anywhere else on the planet. Perhaps if cumulonimbus clouds could be made to form earlier in the day in those parts of our country - perhaps with more dark asphalt parking lots - the ones that did form would be less potent.
When crops are at different stages of growth, they have varying effects on rising thermals - as any sail plane operator will explain. Here's advice from an experienced hang-gliding pilot:

Classic generators include dark ground, burnt areas, tarmac roads/carparks, etc. Sand reflects heat so is bad. Some crop paddocks get surprisingly hot, whereas others are cool. The vital point to remember is the concept of differential heating - what you want is a contrast. By a contrast I mean an area that will get hot next to or better still surrounded by area which are cool. The edges of forests, river banks and lake edges are all potentially good. Areas which heat up fast are good at the beginning of the day. Areas which heat up more slowly can be good towards the end of the day - for example you often find thermals over forests later in the day.

Read more: http://www.hanggliding.org/thermaling.php

CO2 would act like a poison - it's colder and as a gas, it's heavier than H2O, N2, or O2. Of course, in the quantities that you would need, it would also be a thermal and drowning hazard to anyone nearby.

 

[Baluncore]

A tornado is a rotation driven by rising air. A bomb would heat the air and therefore add energy to the tornado. If enough energy could be released continuously on the Earth's surface it might cause a tornadoe's eye to remain in that position, but how do you then stop riding that aggravated tiger.

There is very little atmospheric coupling between the hemispheres. As far as I know, tornadoes cannot cross the equator because of the coriolis force reversal. The Amazon is in South America, so Amazonian butterfly activity is pretty much irrelevant to tornadoes in North America.

 

[Simon Bridge]

A tornado is a rotation driven by rising air. A bomb would heat the air and therefore add energy to the tornado.

This point has been raised and answered several times in this thread already.
Note: The same argument would mean that a bomb cannot be used to put out a fire.
Please see the links in post #18.

With careful placement, the heat from the bomb can change the heat distribution driving the tornado so the winds do something else.

Explosives don't just "add heat": there is also a shockwave. A very large bomb detonated close to a tornado as it forms could disperse the thunderhead. Of course, such a bomb would also do far more damage than the tornado could.

In principle - a sharp increase in pressure close to the center of a tornado could disrupt it - though another one may form someplace else.

It is technically possible to use smaller explosives carefully targeted to disrupt the heat and pressure patterns ... something you can test out in the small scale in a vortex generator. (Hmmm... I wonder if anyone has formally done it?)

The main problems are practical: the sufficient and timely placement of the charges is a lot trickier that it looks.

There are a LOT of discussions of how to disrupt tornadoes and they all seem to involve oversimplifications of one kind or another. Right now, the best practice for minimizing the damage of a tornado is to build strong structures and be able to run fast.

 

[Baluncore]

Right now, the best practice for minimizing the damage of a tornado is to build strong structures and be able to run fast.

True. That is the most economic solution.

The problem I see is that energy is stored in the atmosphere and is being released by the tornado. It becomes a problem of removing stored energy from the system in a non-destructive way.

There is a way of thinking in which, if you throw a big enough bomb at a problem it will go away. That is not true with tornadoes, it just feeds and excites them.

A fire fighters bomb puts out the fire by depriving it of oxygen. It is not a good analogy. The equivalent in tornado is the removal of the thermal gradient. Tornadoes are a problem because, once they have started they are hard to stop.

To use many small bombs to disrupt a tornado would require a very accurate placement. It is hard to see how that could be done at low altitude without it adding energy and ferocity to the cyclone.

At high altitude, one or many small bombs would have little effect because the rotating vortex has such a high inertia and is coupled so weakly to the upper atmosphere that it will not just stop because you want it to.

The last option is to puncture the thermal boundary in the atmosphere at so many points that the energy is released in many small cyclones rather than one big tornado. That requires a technology akin to the gas guns, ground mounted propellers or helicopters, as are now used to break the thermal inversion over fruit growing areas.

Imagine a fleet of 1000 heavy helicopters, say 1 km apart flying in a line of 1000 km along the thermal inversion boundary. What is the chance that it will destroy the profile before it triggers a cyclone that will then become a destructive tornado. They would need to be heavy inefficient helicopters or have blades that are inefficient with high drag.

The direction of helicopter rotor rotation has an influence on the probability of initiating a tornado. The aim in the northern hemisphere must be to spin the air in a clockwise direction when viewed from above. That is safest because it cannot be reinforced by the coriolis force and so become self perpetuating. Which way do helicopter blades normally rotate. Is there a standard?

When two trucks pass on a US highway they generate an anti-clockwise, vertical axis vortex. Maybe driving on the LHS of the road in the northern hemisphere tornado breeding grounds could reduce the problem.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There is a way of thinking in which, if you throw a big enough bomb at a problem it will go away. That is not true with tornadoes, it just feeds and excites them.

Do you have data for that?

Images of large nuclear tests show quite a strong shockwave blowing clouds away and vaporizing ground structures. You think it is not possible to build a bomb that would blow away a thunderhead or at least disrupt a forming funnel.

A fire fighters bomb puts out the fire by depriving it of oxygen.

That is a common misconception.

In, say, an oil well fire, the pressure wave from the explosion blows away the vapors that are burning - it's like blowing out a candle.

Please read the links.

Note: seems that hobbyists have been using firecrackers to disrupt small vortexes in vortex generators. Seems to show you can, in principle, place explosives without adding to the ferocity of the vortex ... and quite easy in miniature.
i.e. http://www.challenge.nm.org/archive/99-00/FinalReports/033/1stpg.html
... looks like backyard messing about to me.

There are no end of dodgy patents surrounding this subject!

Academic papers concentrate on approaches to predict tornadoes - though there are some odd ones about space-based approaches to affecting them.

Iowa State has the kind of tornado lab needed to investigate this.
You'd think they'd have a FAQ.

 

[Dotini]

http://wallisty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tumblr_m8g680zfgS1ru0y9ko1_1280.jpg

If not exploded, then simply unplug it.

 

[.Scott]

There is very little atmospheric coupling between the hemispheres. As far as I know, tornadoes cannot cross the equator because of the Coriolis force reversal. The Amazon is in South America, so Amazonian butterfly activity is pretty much irrelevant to tornadoes in North America.

If tornadoes don't cross the equator, it's only because they are uncommon except in tornado alley in the US. There are such things as "anticyclonic tornadoes", tornadoes that spin the "wrong way". You can Google "anticyclonic tornado" or check this source:

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_9262.html

 

[.Scott]

Images of large nuclear tests show quite a strong shockwave blowing clouds away and vaporizing ground structures. You think it is not possible to build a bomb that would blow away a thunderhead or at least disrupt a forming funnel.

The videos I have seen of hydrogen bomb tests show stratus cloud layers vaporizing from the radiation burst well before the spherical shock wave reaches them.

I don't know if an above ground nuclear test has ever been conducted in unstable air conditions. I would guess not - simply because clear morning skies would normally be preferred.

I don't doubt that a hydrogen blast would disrupt a cumulonimbus cloud - just as a small cumulonimbus can swallow a little one. Of course, we'd rather have the super cell no matter what it carried in the way of tornadoes.

As far as the "forming funnel" is concerned, I don't think there is any "delicate" stage to funnel formation that could be disrupted by a "small" bomb. Cumulonimbus clouds commonly include embedded spinning winds - generally spinning about a more or less horizontal axis. In the one case I have witnessed a funnel cloud develop, it looked as though it started with one end of a horizontally spinning segment turning down toward the base of the cloud and kind of taking over. Perhaps you could use a small bomb at the critical time to rebalance the system and keep that initial "turning down" from happening. Just from Googling about for an hour, it does seem as though there is enough understanding about how the funnel forms to identify a "critical moment" if there is one. For example, that anticyclone tornado discussion I cited above talks about how that particular type of cyclone could form - in terms that seem well worn.

 

[klimatos]

I don't see any understanding here of the legal consequences of bombing a tornado. Relatively benign weather modification activities such as "cloud seeding" have already generated numerous lawsuits. I suspect that something as vigorous as bombing would bring out litigants by the thousands.

 

[davenn]

I can't believe this pointless thread has rambled on for so long

let it die a natural death and put us all out of its misery

mods, I beg of you to lock it Dave

 

[.Scott]

I can't believe this pointless thread has rambled on for so long

let it die a natural death and put us all out of its misery

This type of discussion could prompt contributors to spend a couple of hours researching how tornados form - for the purpose of making more astute posts. But that does seem to be happening. I don't have the time myself to explore more than I have.

 

[Frabjous]

Let's ignore a nuke, because politically it is a non-starter. For arguments sake, let's say it takes 90 atm of over-pressure to disrupt a tornado (this is a total guess). A 1kg charge of TNT has this at a radius of roughly 0.3 m. A MOAB is on the order of a 10000 kg TNT. Taking charge to the 1/3 power, gives 6.5 m. Given that a big tornado can be a mile in diameter, conventional explosives are not close to being big enough.

If we assume 10 atm of overpressure, the distances are 1 m and 21.5 m which still isn't big enough.

If we assume 1atm of overpressure, the distances are 2.7 m and 58 m. Once again too small.

 

[klasse35]

Hello,
as a Newby on this forum I have found here with Solkars #7, Ophiolite #8, .Scott#26 and 29 and SimonBridge’s comments some very interesting hints & links to my own questions, which had already initiated me to do as .Scott had suggested lately. Here I want to add three points.

1. When following such “a funnel-like cloud” crossing our road on several swings - a series of new observations initiated me to look for possible explanations: The rain which had just fallen on a summer's day gush caused steam to raise in the valley in the Ardenne-forest we were just crossing. As these slowly rising fogs had reached about 20 m high, they suddenly were like vertically attracted directly up into that funnel.
As at home I had been experimenting with electrostatic effects on 'mobilees' suspended from the ceiling of a room, I instantly realized, “here are some very strong electrostatic forces involved”.
Continuing on that road we reached the Belgium NPS of Thiange/Meuse where river-water is used for their cooling towers. 30 km upstream just beyond the border is the French PWR-NPS of Chooz.
When we returned home to Süd-Eifel Area there had just been the first and worst Tornado which had left a narrow track right through forests, orchards and neighboring houses of our Village.
2. Checking for NPS-discharges allowed and dismissed as quasi natural ingredients I found great differences of declaration, origin and completeness of un-retainable gases with no storing-possibility. For such -of course- no government may put limits or restrictions nor demand updating for Retention-Factors which could not be developed for technical and financial reasons.('Ok since 1970' IOWA-Hint)
But just this point appears to be necessary not to stay concealed. Ophiolite#8 put up the hint about the famous Brazil butterfly and that makes sense if referred to as first mentioned on an IAEA meeting in Brazil- that the amount of energy in Hydrogens as ²H and ³H by the weight of a butterfly might cause a tornado, like usual over southwest of the US.
3. 50 Experiments using such matter appear to have been done 2006 /2007 to establish and follow the troughs of the Pacific summer- and winter-monsoons as ‘Cold Surge Vortex’, which could be traced by instrumental flights. Results have been published on the scientific Event of the 7thInternatl. Implementation & Planning Meeting of CEOPS SEA-Meteorologists’ Meeting in Bali 6-8 Sept.2007: we have very good results for the Indochina area.
Considering these Facts will contribute to understanding the Effect of Corolis-Forces in combination with the discharges from the various energy-related Institutions already west of Peking and Japan on lamented increases in number and damaging force on Pacific and Atlantic Weather-Abnormalities.
A biologic load can be anticipated by anybody considering known Fodder & Food-Transmission-Paths as synergistic effects of these Factors influencing enzyme-activities, known since Urey’s work after 1931. A big subject not to be excluded on this Earth- and Weather Forum, as the collateral Effects of expensive experiments of 15 Nations Fusion-Hopes cannot be regarded as negligible any more.

 

[davenn]

The rain which had just fallen on a summer's day gush caused steam to raise in the valley in the Ardenne-forest we were just crossing. As these slowly rising fogs had reached about 20 m high, they suddenly were like vertically attracted directly up into that funnel.
As at home I had been experimenting with electrostatic effects on 'mobilees' suspended from the ceiling of a room, I instantly realized, “here are some very strong electrostatic forces involved”.

No, you don't need any mythical electrostatics

the inflow winds with severe storms are very strong, even without a tornado present

cheers
Dave

 

[klasse35]

One could bet sb. would find a way to distract from the point of my Argument.

Discrediting an argument by 'mythical electrostatics' is to prevent anybody think about the implication of the facts given. To which point do You want to have the Literature used , Dave ?

Biological Dangers of Energy-Technology by their problematic gases,
which they are discharging as produced (and have to be allowed to do this legally)
because there is no Method for Retention
nor for Storage (neither short-term nor longterm to avoid biological Harm)
nor for prevention to contact Oxygen (as formerly promised to have the Technology available soon)...

The Consequence is : Formation of OZONE under the Clouds
with uncontrollable consequences for atmospheric Chemistry in the Plumes...

And clusters of organics with attracting properties for electrostatically active parts
forming the poisonous parts f.i. in Englands Pollution now.

Do you know of the Necessity for degassing the "Primary-Coolant Medium" Clean Water
from the "aggressive and corrosive gases formed by the Neutron-bombardment"
named as Cooling process.
The radiochemical instruments to control that gaseous mixture are not programmed
for declaring those PAN-Substances set free as "Volatiles".

And as the inital H2O gives of some steam containing such Organics
(i.e. Carbonated mixture of Hydrogens, Oxygens and Carbon-Isotopes at least with their
partly shortlived daughter & further decay-products)
the procedure is called "AVT" - camouflaging for 'Treatment' (Prophylaxis & Therapy)
what actually stands for "practice of letting fly off what cannot be retained"
and literally means "All Volatiles' Treatment" undeclared unknown, unworthy to think about

 

[davenn]

you are going on about all sorts of wild stuff there

I will take heed of it when you show me some peer reviewed papers on all those
thoughts of yours
Some of them, I don't even initially see as having anything to do with storms

so give me some solid scientific facts papers to read and see if you can change my thinking

cheers
Dave

 

[klasse35]

Davenn,
I noticed, my reply where I had given some literature by knowledgeable and reputated Authors was cut-off.
So here is my copied end of that short message:
...
And as the initial H2O gives off some steam, containing such Organic Volatiles
(i.e. Carbonated mixture of Hydrogens, Oxygens and Carbon-Isotopes at least with their
partly short-lived daughter & further decay-products)
the procedure is called "AVT" - camouflaging for 'Treatment' (Prophylaxis & Therapy)
what actually stands for "practice of letting fly off what cannot be retained"
and literally means "All Volatiles' Treatment" undeclared unknown, unworthy to think about.

As there are no other practices, this has to go on for... how long ? Anybody has a guess ?

“The Thermodynamic Laws of Water for living Organisms are at variance from our Technical Possibilities and Abilities to keep the toxic properties in limits compatible with long-term Survival “
(Karl Trincher, former Cooperating Researcher of Sacharow, see his work in Urban-Schwarzenberg- Verlag 1982 and in Herder 83, and Hevesy’s Review on Radiomimetic Phenomena 1959)
Cheers,
klasse35

 

[davenn]

“The Thermodynamic Laws of Water for living Organisms are at variance from our Technical Possibilities and Abilities to keep the toxic properties in limits compatible with long-term Survival “
(Karl Trincher, former Cooperating Researcher of Sacharow, see his work in Urban-Schwarzenberg- Verlag 1982 and in Herder 83, and Hevesy’s Review on Radiomimetic Phenomena 1959)
Cheers,
klasse35

and what does that have to do with storms and the blowing up/disruption of tornadoes ??


Dave

 

[Baluncore]

klasse35; there are concepts in your posts that I have never met before. Are you perhaps an exotic chef ?
By stirring up an assortment of carefuly selected scientific terms you appear to have made quite a delightful “new age soup”.

 

[Lumberjack400]

a missile or explosion wouldn't be able to disrupt the wind pattern of a large tonado; it might make it lose strength momentarily but wouldn't be able to stop the wind spinning

 

[johnbbahm]

We are a long way from learning all the dynamics that go on in a thunderstorm.
Perhaps outflow boundaries may be a way of vectoring off some of the energy.
If we could through seeding and such, create an outflow boundary,
we might be able to keep the local energy low enough that the tornado does not form.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Hmmm aoml have a similar statement about the advisability of nuking cyclones...
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html

During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.​

Tornados are a lot less energetic but still... disrupting the supercell thunderstorm they are a part of would be on a similar scale.
You may as well throw sharks at it as well - radioactive sharknado?
I figured it would be as well to have the data-links in one place.

 

[Juanmarcosda3rd]

Couldn't we stop a tornado from forming with a big enough vacuum? Like a manmade structure that opens up on contact with the tornado and sucks it in, of course the purpose of the vacuum would be to counteract the violent winds present during the tornado. I could be way off but it's just a theory .:)

 

[jim mcnamara]

The short answer is no. You have to eliminate the cause which is the temperature difference between air masses. The cost of any contraption that would actually do something to disrupt a major tornado is VERY large. What do you suppose it would weigh? More than would allow us to move it around. So we would need hundreds of them every square mile. The basic practical elements of this absolutely preclude being able to do anything like this. We strive to improve forecasting, which is attainable.

Please do not post speculative threads like this on PF. We do have a Science Fiction forum. I am going to ask this thread to be moved there.

 

[Nugatory]

Please do not post speculative threads like this on PF. We do have a Science Fiction forum. I am going to ask this thread to be moved there.

Maybe better to lock this long-dead thread to prevent future reanimations...