Waynes Rule

Any way you care to look at it is fine. However, if you want to elevate your
case above others, it needs to be a better predictor of outcomes. Gather you
evidence and show us how Wayne's Law will improve our ability to accurately
predict the location, width, height, and strength of thermals. I'm game;
convince me.


"bagmaker" wrote in message
...

Below is a pre-amble to a new yahoo group I have started to discuss
thermals. I would ask all interested gliding pilots to join in and
learn, or teach.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermal_truth/

Ok, we know the shapes, triggers, the sizes, the volumes, the heights,
the strengths, the distances between thermals.
We speculate on rotation, blue holes, convergiences, moisture content,
adiabatic lapse rates, height to spacing ratio's and a dozen other
thing relating to thermals.
We have had countless thermal studies, used blipmaps, radars, sensors
and test flights for nearly a hundred years.
But we base it all on the blind understanding that a thermal rises
simply because it is hotter than the air around it, or, at best, less
dense that the air around it.
This is not true.
We feel a wind gust on the airfield in the morning and we know the day
has "started". Sure enough, a willy-willy or dust-devil appears,
usually triggered by the activity on the grid, swirling off down-wind
between the pie-cart and the tug/glider combination, or perhaps the
winch and the glider.
We know a thermal bubble has just broken loose, the willy-willy is the
under-current eddieing around below it in suction, the breeze filling
the void that the thermal left behind.
This is not true.

We see a bubble in the water beside us as we rise in our scuba gear.
The bubble has eddies below it, turbulence beside and below it. It has
a smooth, rounded top and a flat bottom. This is true, however,it is
not rising by itself, as all seem to think, it is being displaced by
the water.
Thermals are no different or they would break Waynes Rule.

After years of racking my brain on this subject -my passion- and
debating it with freinds, scientests, sceptics and expert alike, I
cannot seem to make people understand what I see as the truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, I welcome education from my peers in the gliding
community. If I am not, many people in the world will benefit from this
understanding, as the rules will probably apply to heating of just
about everthing.

I am taking liberty calling the theory Waynes Rule, I apologise to the
purists and the great scientists of the past whose work with gravity
and mass I am borrowing the theory from, but for the discussion, its

Waynes Rule.

Wayne Carter
(bagger)




--
bagmaker

Heallo Tuno, you wrote at 01.05.2008 21:38

I forgot to add -- Tuno's Rule assumes there are no conveyer belts
near the balloon.

YMMD!

Regards
Werner

OK Wayne.

I went to your group and read your rule, but I am not finding an
"aha!" here. Your instructors and all the meteorologists you talked
to just left out the obvious (and therefor assumed) fact that it is
all about differentials. differential pressure, differential
temperatures, etc. Your rule like saying that I cannot pull myself up
on a chin-up bar by itself. The bar must push down on the earth at
the same time, and the earth, in turn, must provide an equal and
opposite force, and the center of our masses must be displaced by the
ratio of our masses, etc, etc, etc,

For me the idea that "hot air rises" is a perfectly legitimate and
valid model of what is going on. It helps me get to the subsequent
and more interesting extrapolations that might lead to actionable
knowledge.

Matt

bagger: tell me -- why is the air around the balloon displacing
it? ... because it doesn't like it, or maybe just feels like it?

On May 1, 6:02*pm, bagmaker
wrote:
Matt, go to the yahoo site for more information.
Toad, there is no practical difference, ther result is the same, there
is however, considerable mis-understanding on the cause
Jim, top of the class today
Tuno, wrong, sorry. The balloon rises because it is displaced by the
denser air around it.
The fact that it is hotter, lighter, smaller, larger or a different
color does not influence its rising without the consideration of the
denser air around it.
Bouyancy is not new, you are correct there

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermal_truth/

bagger

--
bagmaker

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

The fact that it is hotter, lighter, smaller, larger or a different
color does not influence its rising without the consideration of the
denser air around it.

Yes it is "LIGHTER" than the air around it, that's what LIGHTER
means.

The balloon rises because it is displaced by the denser air around it.

No the balloon rises because the ambient pressure at the bottom of
the balloon is higher than the ambient pressure at the top. The
difference between these pressure forces is equal to the weight of the
displaced air. If the weight of the balloon is less than that
displaced weight, then the balloon rises. The only way that happens
is if the balloon is LIGHTER than the displaced air.

What did you think that the balloon (or thermals) was supposed to be
LIGHTER than ? Your shoe ? A car

Please read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy before you try
and re-invent physics.
Or better yet, go fly somewhere.

Todd Smith
3S

On May 1, 12:20*pm, Tuno wrote:
Wayne:

When my friend Burner fills his passenger balloon with hot air and
looses the tether, it rises because the air inside it is less dense
than the air outside it.

Tuno's Rule: A thermal is a hot air balloon without the balloon.

2NO

Jim's rule: When it's too nice a day to sit in the office, go fly.
Nobody's last thought before passing is "I wish I'd spent more time at
the office"

Goin' flying! Seeya!

bagmaker wrote:

We see a bubble in the water beside us as we rise in our scuba gear.
The bubble has eddies below it, turbulence beside and below it. It has
a smooth, rounded top and a flat bottom. This is true, however,it is
not rising by itself, as all seem to think, it is being displaced by
the water.
Thermals are no different or they would break Waynes Rule.

Really? A couple days ago, I saw a dust devil that took dust up 2000
feet in a narrow, spinning column. It didn't look anything like bubble.

The same day, a field fire created a narrow column of smoke topped by a
cloud, but it didn't spin like the dust devil. It didn't look like a
bubble, either.

I suggest that a discussion focusing on a bubble model of thermals is
doomed from the beginning, and to narrow that focus to whether it rises
because it's lighter than the surrounding air or the surrounding air is
heavier than the bubble will yield even less understanding thermals.

But, perhaps I misunderstand the goal of the proposal.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On May 1, 7:28 am, bagmaker
wrote:
Below is a pre-amble to a new yahoo group I have started to discuss
thermals. I would ask all interested gliding pilots to join in and
learn, or teach.
.................................................. .................................................. .
Waynes Rule.
Wayne Carter
(bagger)

I wish ARCHIMEDE was still alive to read this,
of course I would make sure ARCHIMEDE holds
no gun in his hand when meeting you! ;-)

PARDON MY IGNORANCE, WHAT MEANS:
(bagger) ?????

MAYBE:
Bagger is an unofficial title given to courtesy clerks at
supermarkets.
The primary duties of a bagger revolve around putting groceries into a
bag and then ...
writing about thermals.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, tell me at least they are using more and more
recyclable bags.............

Matt,
yes, its always going to be about differences as well, specifically, differences in density resulting from differences in volume arising from differences in temperature.
As for the chin-ups, your statements make sense although I see them as clouding the basic issue- thermals cant rise by themselves. My own expanding girth makes chin-ups a gravity defying issue as well.
Perhaps if I tried to tell you hot air rises mainly "because" of sink, would you re-consider it an important issue?

Tuno,
it is displacing the balloon because it is denser and therefor heavier, thus affected more by gravity.

toad,

Light is fine. Lighter is better still.
Ingo Renner once told me a typical thermal weighed some 50 tonnes. For the discussion, 50 tonnes or 1 gramm act the same, they are both affected by gravity and on their own, go down like a new bride.
Bouyancy is a better way to describe the way a thermal rises and many have pointed to the links available. Others still dont get it although glider pilots have a higher rate so far! Hot air does not rise.

Eric,
Thanks for advancing us! I had used simple bubble thermals, presumably on flat ground for the easy example.
I really struggle with Waynes Rule and smoke columns, especially like the column from a simple cigarette or incense stick.
My best explanation is that the smoke is expanding in a column along its vertical length, being restrained for a short while from sideways movement by the surrounding "sink" but hey, I do struggle.
Waynes Rule must still apply somehow.
The dustdevils/willywillys/tornado/waterspout funnel also is not as simple as the bubble, I surmise however they all come from a kind of vertical convergience, or vertical wave type of action.
As the airmasses collide, they have nowhere else to go but up. Perhaps there is some kinetic energy in the rising mass to accurately start the swirling motion, I dont know.

Dscopel,
your ignorance is pardoned, I do not live in a land where there are courtesy clerks - nor do a great many on this list. Personal attacks aside, the yahoo group statement specifically apologises to the great scientists (archmedes, thanks, boyle, thanks, newton, good on you all) and the purists, I am not one.
I just see a fault in the way most think of thermal dynamics and want to get myself on the right page or everyone else to be on mine.
I reckon the great scientists would applaud me trying to educate either the world or myself.

Bagger