🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------940C626D0B61051B3952BD09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert,

Got your voice mail. Unfortunately I was not part of project VORTEX (although
I'm sure I would have certainly volunteered had I not been in high school at the
time) :) Regarding specific data or statistics from those studies, your best bet
is to either check publications such at Weather & Forecasting or the AMS
Bulletin (published by the American Meteorology Society)...or contact someone at
the Oklahoma University or the National Severe Storms Laboratory. I can think of
several key names, but I would certainly not volunteer anyone without their
permission )as they are quite busy with other research).

Again, to my knowledge, direct measurements of a tornado have never been taken,
although they've gotten pretty darn close. As you can tell, I'm still rather
skeptical from a meteorological standpoint...and it seems that your colleagues
are skeptical from an electronics and feasibility standpoint. While cost
effectiveness (feasibility) would certainly be a major hinderance, Mr. Young
also brings up a great point about RF. Have you thought about how are you going
to fund enough detectors just to TEST its plausability? (No one will pay for an
untested device). Also, where are you going to locate the sensors in an area
that's densely populated and likely to get hit by a tornado? You mention you're
from St. Looey. While it's certainly possible, I certainly wouldn't bet on St.
Louis seeing a tornado within reasonable time to test your detector. Heck, the
chance that ANY particular place gets hit by one, even in tornado alley, is
extremely low. You could potentially be waiting years with 6 figures invested,
only to find out that it doesn't work. Maybe I missed something, but how can you
field test a seemingly random event? I guess you may have to hire some storm
chase mesonet to do your work for you?
Just speculating.

-Evan

Robert Miller wrote:

> "S. Young" <shy9@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3B79F766.294@earthlink.net...
> > Robert Miller wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Basically my idea is for a device that will detect the tornado, but
> since it
> > > can only
> > > detect one as close as the back yard it is next to useless for the home
> that
> > > has
> > > the detector.  So it broadcasts a signal to every other device within
> range.
> > > I
> > > believe I can get the production costs down to about $40.00 each maybe
> less.
> > > One detector in a city is useless.  So if I could seed a city with 1,000
> > > detectors,
> > > still rather sparse.  Every device purchased would increase the
> > > effectiveness of
> > > the network.
> > >
> > Althought not an electronics engineer, it sounds like you have each
> > device inputting data from 999 OTHER devices and processing that data.
> > I question if that data processing can be done for less than $100 per
> > device.
> >
> > What type of RF would be involved, and how many people would be alarmed
> > at that much RF in their neighborhood.
> >
> > But a more basic question is what type of data do you expect each of
> > these 1000 devices to gather, and how often (more data means more
> > processing).  Although there may be some common "signal" that could be
> > detected (by some sort of device), such a signal has NOT YET BEEN
> > DESCRIBED. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any computer program that
> > is able to model tornadogensis. Even pressure drops occur without
> > tornadogensis.
>
> Micro-processors have dropped in price,  as well as digital signal
> processors and
> even communications chipsets.
>
> Building a foolproof sensor is not practical,  anything can be fooled given
> the right
> circumstances.  Is a smoke detector foolproof? yet how many lives are saved
> every
> day by smoke detectors.  There are simple ways to increase the accuracy of
> the
> detector in given design constraints.
>
> Robert Miller

--------------940C626D0B61051B3952BD09
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="Evan.Bookbinder.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Evan.Bookbinder
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="Evan.Bookbinder.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Bookbinder;Evan
tel;fax:(417) 863-6209
tel;work:(417) 863-8028 x403
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:ASOS Systems Manager;National Weather Service Springfield, MO (SGF)
version:2.1
email;internet:Evan.Bookbinder@noaa.gov
title:Forecaster
adr;quoted-printable:;;5805 West Highway EE=0D=0A;Springfield, MO 65802-8400;;;
fn:Evan Bookbinder
end:vcard

--------------940C626D0B61051B3952BD09--