POSSIBLE METHODS OF STEERING HURRICANES...

Away from land we presume...saving lives, because they now say the risk of hurricanes hitting cities like New York where more people have moved would cause four times the damage of a hurricane like Katrina and New Orleans. Other cities are also at risk. Experts say it's not a question of if but when this type of disaster will happen.


It's well known that friction by the land changes the paths of hurricanes. Often as the hurricanes spin near the shore they "bounce off" or other changes in the general motion takes place. Bill Gates has tried to develop boats that have giant refrigerators on the deck to hope to cool the water on the side and thus perhaps move the hurricane reliably.

In the N hemisphere in the Atlantic the amount of dust in the air changes the number and intensity of hurricanes, so I had considered the possibility of dropping or adding dust to one side of the hurricane, or even finding a source of cheap aimable dust by using a laser, ect to move a small asteroid then using it's gravity as it whizzes by a larger one or ect. to move the asteroid into the path of where we might want the dust as it would burn up by way of the asteroid entering the air. Even though this is creative of me there are several problems; it would take a long time to move the asteroids, we might have to move a lot of them, other nations might object to possible military use of this method, and it would be polluting. Even so the more basic plan of just adding dust might be cheaper than refrigerator ships, it's already proven to work the question is how much dust could we afford or need to add, and how would we add it, to what side of the storm, what type, ect.

A third method that I may be the original author of (though I'm not sure, I may have arrived at this independently by confluence of evolution and invention) is to use an iceberg from the arctic after breaking off a piece with explosives or saws for more stability perhaps and then moving the iceberg to the hurricane or perhaps storing it in insulation nearer the tropics in a harbor or offshore somehow, collecting the freshwater like for the desert while waiting to the storms to start. Once the storm was near, the iceberg could be moved toward the storm and the reaction force as the iceberg would implode to the center might be used to steer the storm (the air implodes to the center and then rises; tropical storms are a sort of heat engine they cleanse and cool the tropic by about 30 degrees. For some reason I don't know tropical storms occur in all the tropical oceans of the world except the S Atlantic, perhaps heat rises "up" North.) Once the iceberg is in the center it will plug up the eye of the storm, theoretically having some or no effect. Did you know the burner on a stove is also called the eye? I found out when I got a new one for 50! Ouch, burns real good though! The iceberg might cool the storm and also stop the flow of the air perhaps "throwing a wrench" in the way the storm acts, as a heat engine.


A problem might be the high cost of bringing an iceberg from the N (but where would we find the giant jug of Coca Cola Orange ?). Another problem is about the relatively small kick the implosion of the iceberg for just a few hours would give, then it would stay in the center, thus the "wrench" would perhaps be the main value here because this method would have more stopping advantage than steering, although the advantage of both might be much better than nothing. The winds might be changed but because the zone of high winds often reaches out for 150 miles. Some of the largest icebergs ever calved in Antarctica are about the size of RI, the ocean state, or about 100 miles narrow. Moving them might take giant barges, and the slow travel would have more melting, at higher price yet. Strong wind might actually eat up the iceberg and this part of the plan might be off.

All the hurricane steering plans could be practiced in places like the S pacific with cyclones, with few people nearby.

There is a patent on a machine that uses ships that they describe in the IP as using a giant water spray to the side of the eye once inside in hopes of "side steering" the hurricane. The amount of water needed would be voluminous. I thought of using nuclear powered submarines to also generate pressure on the water with propellers in hopes of steering the storm by both the spray and pressure from the more solid water below (this is why your pipes squeak, water is considered to an incompressible solid by physicists a room temperature). The physics of wave motion are rather like a wave, a 10 foot wave reaches about 10 feet above and below the surface of the water and there's not much wave motion below that. Thus a submarine might be in easier reach of the center of the storm without risk to the crew. (The top speeds near the center of storm are not well known since not even most anerometers can be strong enough to withstand the winds. Huger machines like ships are more at risk per se.).

These methods have both advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages seem considerable, not so inconsiderable when the scale of the machines and methods and cost needed to achieve control with. Small disadvantages in large engineering have larger cost, an important consideration here too.

Another method has been devised, two submarines robot or manned, are used instead of one, both with large propellers or propulsion to exert large pressure on the water. The twin machines are connected by a large line or hawser. Both machines are between a large turbine that spins about the center of the line which is held tight by the two machines. The top of the turbine is above the water held up by a machine with bouyancy. The two submarines or boats that hold the hawser are moving the line at right angles to the general rotation of the winds, exerting friction and force to hopefully steer the storm. The advantage perhaps here is the greater leverage a longer lever arm has over just central force like the ships with jets. As with new pliers they have that take less grip to do more power, an easier lever arm exerts more force with the same input, more control for less.

The turbine generates power in this idea by its friction with the storm to power the propellers of the submarines, saving cost, and adding control. In the center are strong forces in balance, but balance is not always easy to change without more leverage.

Another method that's been devised recently is to use a large "sailboat" that has a long and low profile. The wind by the sail causes a reaction force, the sailboat has a weighted keel for stability is held up by bouyancy via two floats on either side. Motors below exert pressure on the sail by the water. Due to high wind speeds the sail might not have to be of height, reducing risk of wind damage. Even so the surface area of the long sail would be enough to steer the storm by air pressure.

Initially my plan was to use the known evidence that friction with the land changes the paths of hurricanes to make large fins near the shore to hope to steer the storm. The problem is there's no way to know where the storm will hit so large numbers of the giant fins would have to be built at large price and it would not be beautious even so the fins nearer shore might be good for wind power all the rest of the time when not used for control of the storms. I'm a painter and I once dreamed of a cool retro fan with streamers as you look up the E coast, the storm is to the lower right, and the upper right has all the cool airships and two winged planes sailing between the layers of blue air and precise clouds blended in with like NY, ect. Perhaps someday like the musicians typewriter, the dream of just blowing the storms back out to sea with fans might one day come true. Even so to build high enough fans to withstand the wind might be unfeasible, and this isn't using the leverage of the two submarine turbine method which would also allow more portable control so the storm is never near the land.
..