...
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 droop of sonic booms results in 1 to 2 degree tilts. And that tilt would be 180 degrees different in azimuth from the above values.The sonic booms point up-slope from the tower, so the approximate 5 degree tilts seen here are a combination of the boom "droop" and the slope of the terrain.
These tilts appear to be due to the slope of the terrain, which is downward in the -u direction, in the direction that the sonic boom points. If the terrain was not sloping, these would indicate a "backwards" boom tilt, i.e. the booms angling upward from the tower. They generally agree on an approximate 5 degree slope tilt of the terrain sonics relative to the sonicsmean flow, except the 9.9 degree tilt for the 7m sonic in Aug 2011.
There appears to be some local "disturbance in the force", causing a pinched effect at 2 meters, and to a lesser extent at 7 meters, so that winds straight into the sonic have an additional downward inclination.
| Code Block | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
dpar(start="2011 2 21 00:25",end="2011 4 4 07:26",coords="instrument") dpar(hts=2) plot.tilt(flag="diag",ellim=10,spdmin=0.5) |