...
date | height (m) | lean | leanaz | w offset (m/s) | elevation residual rms (deg) | offset residual rms (m/s) | notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar 2011 | 2 | 4.1 | -1.7 | 0.03 | 2.9 | 0.04 |
|
| 7 | 5.9 | 8.2 | 0.07 | 5.7 | 0.08 |
|
| 16 | 5.9 | -0.2 | -0.01 | 3.1 | 0.011 |
|
| 30 | 4.5 | -2.1 | 0.02 | 2.7 | 0.014 |
|
| 43 | 4.3 | -5.9 | 0.04 | 3 | 0.02 |
|
Aug 2011 | 2 | 5.6 | -6.3 | 0.04 | 2.6 | 0.03 |
|
| 7 | 9.1 | -1.4 | 0.06 | 7 | 0.09 | large tilt |
| 16 | 5.9 | 4.6 | -0.01 | 3.6 | 0.01 |
|
| 30 | 4.3 | -0.9 | 0.00 | 3.6 | 0.01 |
|
| 43 | 4.4 | -5.5 | 0.01 | 4.2 | 0.02 |
|
Tom says that typical sag of sonic booms results in 1 to 2 degree tilts, which would be 180 degees different in azimuth.
These tilts appear to be due to the slope of the terrain, slopeing down which is downward in the -u direction, in the direction that the sonic boom points. If the terrain was not sloping, these would be a "backwards" boom tilt, i.e. the booms not drooping from the tower but angling upward. They generally agree on an approximate 4.5 degree slope of the terrain relative to the sonics, except the 9.9 degree tilt for the 7m sonic in Aug 2011.
| Gallery | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
...