If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
As a horticulturalist and a glider pilot, perhaps the answer is that the
moist ground acts as more of a heat sink into the ground, up until it achieves a full heat load and then dissipates this in the afternoon, more so than the surrounding dry ground. Vegetation on a west facing slope is a great source in the afternoons out our way. I have found lift in moister areas, but much more so in the afternoons, mainly when lower in the convection zone and certainly not in the mornings. Try walking around a wet area at 10am and 6pm and compare the relative heat to dry areas. The other issue that could be occurring is the bubble of cool air over the moist ground could be acting as a trigger point, for the drifting heated air from the surrounding dry areas. We all know of the tremendously small things that can act as a trigger. As to lapse rates the air is not saturated till cloud base, unless of course a fog is present (mornings) which is a different case than trying to get a thermal. Robert P Nimbus 2C "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net... "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... (Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com... "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity, but no boomers and only low. "Mike Rapoport" schreef in bericht ink.net... You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place to start...but it won't work Mike MU-2 Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around. A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal. Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters? What's the old saying about never saying never? Kirk LS6-b The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above water. Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated air (ie in clouds) Mike MU-2 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"goneill" wrote in message ... "Aspley Nursery" wrote in message ... Robert P Nimbus 2C I see in your sig Nimbus 2 C That model is one I have been considering for some time. Do you have any comments on it in comparison to other open class gliders and in particular its approaches with the ventus style brakes. Because there are none here I have some contrary comments from other club members and even considered just getting a ASW20 instead . The main reason I have been looking at it is most of the better pilots are flying ventus's 18m but my budget only runs to an older open class How does the 2c keep up with them all be it with a bit of water on to get the wing loading up.The main "anti" comment is that it won't keep up with its thicker aerofoil section and thus negating the main reason why I am considering one. gary |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... (Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com... "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity, but no boomers and only low. "Mike Rapoport" schreef in bericht ink.net... You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place to start...but it won't work Mike MU-2 Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around. A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal. Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters? What's the old saying about never saying never? Kirk LS6-b The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above water. Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated air (ie in clouds) Mike MU-2 OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew, read the numerical support of Mike Borgelt's statement below which I
posted a few days ago. Mike Borgelt wrote: Water vapour has a molecular weight of a bit over 18 and dry air a bit more than 28. Water vapour at the same pressure as the air around it is considerably less dense than dry air. More water vapour= more bouyancy. Just a simple approach with rough figures to support Mike's statement and hopefully to trigger the "smart guys". At atmospheric pressure (say 1013 hPa) and at 20 C° the density of dry air is about 1.22 kg/m3. Pure water vapor at atmospheric pressure has a density of 18/28 x 1.22 = 0.785 kg/m3, or 785 g/m3. Air is saturated with water vapor when it contains 25 g/m3 at 20 C°. Assume a relative humidity of say 30% on a dry day. Then one cubic meter of air contains 0.3 x 25 = 7.5 g of water vapor and the air has then a density of 1.2159 kg/m3. Assume further that over a shallow pond the humidity of the air increases to 60% due to a serious evaporation from the pond. Then the air directly over the pond will contain 0.6 x 25 = 15.0 g/m3 corresponding to an air density of 1.2118 kg/m3. So one cubic meter of air having 60% humidity is 1.2159 - 1.2118= 0.0041 kg lighter then air with a humidity of 30%. This 4.1 g/m3 does not look much, but compare this figure with the decrease in density when air is heated up. The temperature coëfficiënt of air is 0.0044 kg/m3 per °C at 20 °C, meaning that when air is heated up by one degree its density decreases with 4.4 g/m3. So one may conclude that changing the relative humidity of air from 30% to 60% has the same effect on buoyancy as raising the temperature of air by 1 °C. So it may be worthwhile indeed to search for a thermal over a shallow pond in a dry area when low as I stated earlier. Karel, NL "Andrew Sarangan" schreef in bericht om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message thlink.net... "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... (Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com... "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity, but no boomers and only low. "Mike Rapoport" schreef in bericht ink.net... You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place to start...but it won't work Mike MU-2 Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around. A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal. Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters? What's the old saying about never saying never? Kirk LS6-b The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above water. Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated air (ie in clouds) Mike MU-2 OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
If that were true, you would also find a VERY low cloud over the same spot.
Rgds, Derrick. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Due to mixing with dryer air the humidity is spread out after a while and
condensation does not take place. Karel, NL "Derrick Steed" schreef in bericht ... If that were true, you would also find a VERY low cloud over the same spot. Rgds, Derrick. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message thlink.net... "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... (Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com... "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity, but no boomers and only low. "Mike Rapoport" schreef in bericht ink.net... You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place to start...but it won't work Mike MU-2 Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around. A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal. Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters? What's the old saying about never saying never? Kirk LS6-b The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above water. Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated air (ie in clouds) Mike MU-2 OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no? No. The reason that saturated air lapses at a slower rate is that latent energy is being released as the water vapor changes to liquid, that is the only reason. Mike MU-2 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
I don't disagree with your math but the air over the water is also cooler
than the air over the dry land adjacent to the pond. Mike MU-2 "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... Andrew, read the numerical support of Mike Borgelt's statement below which I posted a few days ago. Mike Borgelt wrote: Water vapour has a molecular weight of a bit over 18 and dry air a bit more than 28. Water vapour at the same pressure as the air around it is considerably less dense than dry air. More water vapour= more bouyancy. Just a simple approach with rough figures to support Mike's statement and hopefully to trigger the "smart guys". At atmospheric pressure (say 1013 hPa) and at 20 C° the density of dry air is about 1.22 kg/m3. Pure water vapor at atmospheric pressure has a density of 18/28 x 1.22 = 0.785 kg/m3, or 785 g/m3. Air is saturated with water vapor when it contains 25 g/m3 at 20 C°. Assume a relative humidity of say 30% on a dry day. Then one cubic meter of air contains 0.3 x 25 = 7.5 g of water vapor and the air has then a density of 1.2159 kg/m3. Assume further that over a shallow pond the humidity of the air increases to 60% due to a serious evaporation from the pond. Then the air directly over the pond will contain 0.6 x 25 = 15.0 g/m3 corresponding to an air density of 1.2118 kg/m3. So one cubic meter of air having 60% humidity is 1.2159 - 1.2118= 0.0041 kg lighter then air with a humidity of 30%. This 4.1 g/m3 does not look much, but compare this figure with the decrease in density when air is heated up. The temperature coëfficiënt of air is 0.0044 kg/m3 per °C at 20 °C, meaning that when air is heated up by one degree its density decreases with 4.4 g/m3. So one may conclude that changing the relative humidity of air from 30% to 60% has the same effect on buoyancy as raising the temperature of air by 1 °C. So it may be worthwhile indeed to search for a thermal over a shallow pond in a dry area when low as I stated earlier. Karel, NL "Andrew Sarangan" schreef in bericht om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message thlink.net... "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message om... (Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com... "K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ... My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity, but no boomers and only low. "Mike Rapoport" schreef in bericht ink.net... You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place to start...but it won't work Mike MU-2 Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around. A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal. Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters? What's the old saying about never saying never? Kirk LS6-b The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above water. Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated air (ie in clouds) Mike MU-2 OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Reply to KP Termaat "Due to mixing with dryer air the humidity is spread out
after a while and condensation does not take place". I don't agree - common models of thermal convection are based on the assumption that the air parcel (or column for that matter) rises "adiabatically". If you refer to any text on Thermodynamics you will find that "adiabatic" means that there is no exchange of energy with the surroundings, "mixing with drier air" would invalidate that assumption. My point was that any mixing of water vapour with the air above the pond would certainly not take the humidity in the parcel as high as 60% except in a region very close to the surface of the water - this may have something to do with the "thermal" not sticking to the surface (is there such a thing as the surface tension of a thermal bubble?) as much as it would over a dry surface. Rgds, Derrick. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
I've followed most of this thread and have found it interesting. I
think Mike Borgelt's analysis is a good accounting of what's going on. I get to deal with underground mine ventilation and it has some interesting analogies to this situation, water vapor and thermals. In some situations moist air underground will be lighter than air in other parts of a mine or tunnel and the difference in the "wieght" will be sufficient to change the air flow - just because of humidity! Most people, and pilots too - are surprised that dry air is heavier than air with some moisture in it. A parcel at a given temperature will be the lightest at 100% RH. I've been in thermals that I'm sure originated in stock tanks or isolated ponds out west where the air is "relatively" dry. It doesn't occurr in New England though, I'd guess because there isn't enough of a humidity differential between the two air parcels ( over the water, and adjacent ) and thier relative humidities. Out west where the air is drier this does occurr and could very well trigger a thermal. And then probably in conditions where land forms or the area is conducive to preventing mixing with surounding air by wind - a sheltered area or no air movement to allow a parcel to build above a water source. And then the bouyant difference in the air masses due to the humidity diferences has to be enough to overcome the air cooling near the surface of the water ( the swamp cooler thing! ) by the evaporation taking place into the air above the water. Clear as mud - Mark Guay |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |