Torque a Hurricane? Can You Alter Angular Momentum?

[zankaon]

Might one torque a huricane? That is alter the orthogonal angular momentum vector? In other words, cause a hurricane to wobble, LIKE a figure skater initiating spinning, and then pulling in just one arm; hence wobbling. Huricanes have sort of linear motion of slow 10-15 mph. Such tight low pressure heat engines of course get their fuel from endothermic vaporation of warm sea water fuel. Then up the chimney, and condensation to form water droplets initially and eventually in part to rain, an exothermic process. The resultant energy and differential cooling can result in internal winds. So could one run milatary plane engines slow and dirty, releasing as much pollution or silver iodine as possible for over about 200 miles on one side of huricane only. So more condensation and rain, and thus more energy released for wind creation. So increasing the angular velocity, and decreasing the moment of inertia - more so on one side, even though there is a redistribution of energy. That is, more tight coiling on one side. This would have to be done persistently, in order not to miss a quanitative effect. Of course this would only be for a huricane headed directly towards 1 of 2 large populatec sites i.e. Houston or N Orleans. A viable experiment?

 

[D H]

The answer to the first question in this article, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqhurm.htm, pretty much sums things up:

As with most hurricane modification ideas, this one is much easier said than done.

Note that the article does address project STORMFURY, which more-or-less attempted to do what you suggested back in the 1960s.

 

[zankaon]

Naturally occurring concentric eyewall formation seemed to be the dilemma. That is, a ring of thunderclouds stealing moisture from the eyewall lead to dissipation of the inner eyewall; but a concentric eyewall can form further out, which initially might have a lower angular velocity, but then intensifies. So seeding was emulating such naturally occurring phenomanon. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D8.html"
Hurricanes contain immense energy. So to attempt the original idea of pollution added or enormous seeding on a hemi-hurricane scale, might seem too difficult; or is more experimentation worth considering in diverting such enormous heat engines?

 

[PlasmaSphere]

[related subject] One of the best explanation that i have seen for tonadoes is using a natural charged sheath vortex, first proposed by scientist Peter Thompson. His description is hard to fault; http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Charge_sheath_vortex_basics_for_tornado.html

He then goes on to consider some basic physics, often overlooked because they sit on adjoining fields of research.

“When you consider two charged particles with the same charge, when stationary they will repel each other, but when moving in parallel each moving charge creates a circular magnetic field round itself that results in mutual attraction. This is normally demonstrated in the attraction between two wires where negative charge is moving in parallel, but applies equally to charge moving in a paper or plastic film on a production line or in a moving charged dust cloud, or a thunder storm.

The forces created by an electrical current in a wire are produced in proportion to the speed of electrons through a wire. Because of collisions and random movements of electrons in the wire, the overall speed of the electrons, or drift speed is quite slow. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html (but the density is high). A 1 volt potential in a pure copper wire will produce a drift speed of 0.0043m/s This is less than half a centimeter in a second. One definition of the amp and force is based on this. 1 amp produces a force of 2*10^-7 Newtons per metre of wire when the parallel wires are 1 meter apart. By contrast production line speeds for paper and plastic film can be over 100 times faster and air flow in a tornado can exceed 1000 m/s.

The effect of moving charge are often forgotten about because electrostatics and electric current are often taught separately in schools

The effects of moving single charge become most dramatic when a charged vortex is created. Charged particles in front of or behind another particle will experience strong forces of repulsion, but the charged particles moving in parallel are very strongly attracted together! The net result is to form a charged sheath vortex, where a sheath of particles rotates about an open core. The sheath cannot contract into the core because of repulsion round the core, and the opposite sides flowing in opposite directions repel, Neither can it expand outwards from the sheath because of the attraction between particles moving in parallel. The result is a very tightly bound sheath of particles and air molecules. If new charged particles are being delivered to this rotating sheath vortex they will be bound into the sheath with the build up of huge electrical potential that doesn’t discharge because of the forces of attraction generated by the movement of charged particles.

The 3M polypropylene plant, he states is “the ideal situation for setting up a charged sheath vortex. The high speed web is delivering a constant supply of the same charge to the tent created by the web flowing up and over the tensioning rollers. Within this tent, friction with the moving film causes the air to start rotating and initially this air will be given the same charge as the film. The rotating charged air will now start to create the attractive forces between particles moving in parallel and will draw in more charge from the moving plastic web. This process will continue and will produce a charged vortex sheath spinning in the middle of the tent. This would normally be invisible and could also feel like a solid wall with a well-defined edge (and a soft centre). You certainly wouldn’t push it out of the way!”

I feel that currently this is by far the best explanation for tonadoes that i have seen anywhere. He gives an explanation for the origin of tornadoes, their basic observed properties and how they disspipate. So far theories that address all of those properties in simple concepts have been hard to find, but there's a couple of good ones out there now. Many theories explain certain specific aspects of tornadoes, but they do not explain them in their entirety like he seems to have done.