the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Dec 2021
Development of an in situ Acoustic Anemometer to Measure Wind in the Stratosphere for SENSOR
Abstract. The Stratospheric Environmental respoNses to Solar stORms (SENSOR) campaign investigates the influence of solar storms on the stratosphere. This campaign employs a long-duration zero-pressure balloon as a platform to carry multiple types of payloads during a series of flight experiments in the mid-latitude stratosphere from 2019 to 2022. This article describes the development and testing of an acoustic anemometer for obtaining in situ wind measurements along the balloon trajectory. Developing this anemometer was necessary, as there is no existing commercial off-the-shelf product, to the authors’ knowledge, capable of obtaining in situ wind measurements on a high-altitude balloon or other similar floating platform in the stratosphere. The anemometer is also equipped with temperature, pressure, and humidity sensors from a Temperature-Pressure-Humidity measurement module, inherited from a radiosonde developed for sounding balloons. The acoustic anemometer and other sensors were used in a flight experiment of the SENSOR campaign that took place in the Da chaidan District (95.37° E, 37.74° N) on 4 September 2019. Three-dimensional wind speed observations, which were obtained during level flight at an altitude of around 25 km, are presented. A preliminary analysis of the measurements yielded by the anemometer are also discussed. In addition to wind speed measurements, temperature, pressure, and relative humidity measurements during ascent are compared to observations from a nearby radiosonde launched four hours earlier. The problems experienced by the acoustic anemometer during the 2019 experiment show that the acoustic anemometer must be improved for future experiments in the SENSOR campaign.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(4353 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-424', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2022
This manuscript focuses on the description of the development of a sonic anemometer designed to perform measurements in the stratosphere (with a sampling rate of 10Hz) on board of high altitude research balloons. A claim is made in the abstract that "Developing this anemometer was necessary, as there is no existing commercial off-the-shelf product, to the authors’ knowledge, capable of obtaining in situ wind measurements on a high-altitude balloon or other similar floating platform in the stratosphere". Clearly, the latter statement appears to be not accurate, as later on in the text the authors cite an article by Maruca et al. (appeared in AMT in 2017 : https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/10/1595/2017/) describing an experiment in which an off-the-shelf anemometer with minimal modifications was employed to perform three-dimensional velocity measurements of the wind in the stratosphere, with a sampling rate of 200Hz. The run performed by Maruca et al. produced data used to conduct a spectral analysis of the stratospheric wind, presented in the same AMT article. Previously, Banfield et al. developed and tested a homemade acoustic anemometer which operated up to an altitude of 33km, returning as well high resolution wind velocity measurements. In my opinion, the outcome of these 2016 and 2017 articles allows to say that operating a sonic anemometer in the stratosphere is by itself no news, which is the major problem I have with the present manuscript.Indeed, main conclusions here are that the acoustic anemometer developed by the authors "obtained continuous wind velocity data at the floating altitudes of 24-25km" and "...preliminary spectral analysis demonstrate that the acoustic anemometer employed in this study can sense rapid changes in wind and is useful for researching small-scale wind fluctuations in the stratosphere", indeed similarly to what was done by Maruca et al.in 2017.I consider very valuable the efforts made by the authors to develop a new acoustic instrument able to perform velocity wind measurements in the stratosphere, I really think this is needed and I strongly encourage them to pursue with further developments of their instrument. However, in order for a probe to be worthy of becoming the subject of a scientific article, such instrument should either make it possible sets of observations which were not possible in before, or the measurements collected in runs of the newly developed probe must be used to produce original analyses and results. The latter should address one or more science cases that need do be described and thoroughly discussed in the draft proposed for publication. For these reasons, I cannot suggest the present manuscript for the publication in AMT.- Banfield, D., Schindel, D.W., Tarr, S. and Dissly, R.W.: A Martian acoustic anemometer, J Acoust. Soc. Am., 140(2), 1420, DOI: 10.1121/1.4960737, 2016.- Maruca, B.A., Marino, R., Sundkvist, D., Godbole, N.H., Constantin, S., Carbone, V. and Zimmerman, H.: Overview of and first observations from the TILDAE High-Altitude Balloon Mission, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(4), 1595-1607, DOI: 10.5194/amt-10-1595-2017, 2017.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2021-424-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-424/amt-2021-424-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-424', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jan 2022
The authors introduce a self-made ultrasonic anemometer (hereafter called “sonics”) for wind velocity measurements based on a drifting stratospheric balloon in an altitude of about 25 km.
It is claimed that these are the first measurements with high resolution at those altitudes because off-the-shelf sonics do not reliable run in those extreme environments due to poor signal-to-noise ratio.
The authors claim that the main motivation for their work is “To the authors’ knowledge, there is no existing commercial off-the-shelf product that can obtain in situ wind measurements at altitudes exceeding 20 km” which is then also immediately refuted to a large extent in a cited article by Marcua et al. which presents sonic data observed in an altitude of 18 km which is not much less than the mentioned 20 km.
The authors start their sensor evaluation with a ground-based intercomparison with a commercial sonic with much less temporal resolution which has been designed for weather observations and not research. There is no doubt about the question if the new developed sensor works in general and provides reasonable data, however, this simple experiment does not provide high quality data needed for a detailed characterization of the sensor performance. I got no idea about the absolute accuracy or even the sensor resolution of the new sonic based on carefully performed observations.
The technical description of the new sonic is at many places too detailed compared to the real important things. For example, the discussion about the transducer separation L is vague; so why did you choose 20 cm which is longer than for most commercial devices and how do you conclude that this compromise is working? There are many other places which provides information which does not really help to better understand your device. That a "controller board serves as a brain" does not provide any useful information. Phrases as "extreme environments" do not help; please provide numbers and I suggest avoiding such vague phrases and technical details which are not necessary to understand the real important things. That a circuit is protected by a fuse is standard and not worth to be mentioned here but instead I would like to know in which way you have overcome technical limitations you mentioned at the beginning and why is your system running in 25 km height and others not (if true).
About the data analysis:
You mentioned spikes in the observations as technical problems but no details are given how they have been removed. Also possible reasons for that spikes are only very briefly mentioned but if this a problem for high altitude measurements with sonics than a more detailed discussion would be interesting.
Measuring vertical wind speeds from a moving platform is extremely challenging and strongly depends on the accuracy of the measured pitch angle; however, there is absolutely no discussion about this issue.
The section about the power spectral analysis is very brief and vague but you draw the simple conclusion that the newly developed sonic works well - this is too less for a scientific analysis and does reads more like a short progress report. To be convinced that this sensor provides useful data for scientific analysis - in particular for turbulence analysis - much more work is needed. From my point of view there is no proof that this ultrasonic works better in the stratosphere than other sensors. I had a brief look into the corresponding section of Marcua et al.: their sonic provides two decades higher spectral resolution which is striking. The only differences which might justify a new publication is that Marcua et al provide observations up to “only”18 km and your data has been observed at 25 km - however, with less resolution.
Although I greatly appreciate the development of the new sonic, the manuscript in its current state does not warrant publication. The progress compared to other similar systems is not convincingly presented and the analysis methods of the acquired data - both on the ground as a comparison and on the balloon - are rather simplistic.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-424-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-424/amt-2021-424-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-424', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2022
This manuscript focuses on the description of the development of a sonic anemometer designed to perform measurements in the stratosphere (with a sampling rate of 10Hz) on board of high altitude research balloons. A claim is made in the abstract that "Developing this anemometer was necessary, as there is no existing commercial off-the-shelf product, to the authors’ knowledge, capable of obtaining in situ wind measurements on a high-altitude balloon or other similar floating platform in the stratosphere". Clearly, the latter statement appears to be not accurate, as later on in the text the authors cite an article by Maruca et al. (appeared in AMT in 2017 : https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/10/1595/2017/) describing an experiment in which an off-the-shelf anemometer with minimal modifications was employed to perform three-dimensional velocity measurements of the wind in the stratosphere, with a sampling rate of 200Hz. The run performed by Maruca et al. produced data used to conduct a spectral analysis of the stratospheric wind, presented in the same AMT article. Previously, Banfield et al. developed and tested a homemade acoustic anemometer which operated up to an altitude of 33km, returning as well high resolution wind velocity measurements. In my opinion, the outcome of these 2016 and 2017 articles allows to say that operating a sonic anemometer in the stratosphere is by itself no news, which is the major problem I have with the present manuscript.Indeed, main conclusions here are that the acoustic anemometer developed by the authors "obtained continuous wind velocity data at the floating altitudes of 24-25km" and "...preliminary spectral analysis demonstrate that the acoustic anemometer employed in this study can sense rapid changes in wind and is useful for researching small-scale wind fluctuations in the stratosphere", indeed similarly to what was done by Maruca et al.in 2017.I consider very valuable the efforts made by the authors to develop a new acoustic instrument able to perform velocity wind measurements in the stratosphere, I really think this is needed and I strongly encourage them to pursue with further developments of their instrument. However, in order for a probe to be worthy of becoming the subject of a scientific article, such instrument should either make it possible sets of observations which were not possible in before, or the measurements collected in runs of the newly developed probe must be used to produce original analyses and results. The latter should address one or more science cases that need do be described and thoroughly discussed in the draft proposed for publication. For these reasons, I cannot suggest the present manuscript for the publication in AMT.- Banfield, D., Schindel, D.W., Tarr, S. and Dissly, R.W.: A Martian acoustic anemometer, J Acoust. Soc. Am., 140(2), 1420, DOI: 10.1121/1.4960737, 2016.- Maruca, B.A., Marino, R., Sundkvist, D., Godbole, N.H., Constantin, S., Carbone, V. and Zimmerman, H.: Overview of and first observations from the TILDAE High-Altitude Balloon Mission, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(4), 1595-1607, DOI: 10.5194/amt-10-1595-2017, 2017.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2021-424-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-424/amt-2021-424-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-424', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jan 2022
The authors introduce a self-made ultrasonic anemometer (hereafter called “sonics”) for wind velocity measurements based on a drifting stratospheric balloon in an altitude of about 25 km.
It is claimed that these are the first measurements with high resolution at those altitudes because off-the-shelf sonics do not reliable run in those extreme environments due to poor signal-to-noise ratio.
The authors claim that the main motivation for their work is “To the authors’ knowledge, there is no existing commercial off-the-shelf product that can obtain in situ wind measurements at altitudes exceeding 20 km” which is then also immediately refuted to a large extent in a cited article by Marcua et al. which presents sonic data observed in an altitude of 18 km which is not much less than the mentioned 20 km.
The authors start their sensor evaluation with a ground-based intercomparison with a commercial sonic with much less temporal resolution which has been designed for weather observations and not research. There is no doubt about the question if the new developed sensor works in general and provides reasonable data, however, this simple experiment does not provide high quality data needed for a detailed characterization of the sensor performance. I got no idea about the absolute accuracy or even the sensor resolution of the new sonic based on carefully performed observations.
The technical description of the new sonic is at many places too detailed compared to the real important things. For example, the discussion about the transducer separation L is vague; so why did you choose 20 cm which is longer than for most commercial devices and how do you conclude that this compromise is working? There are many other places which provides information which does not really help to better understand your device. That a "controller board serves as a brain" does not provide any useful information. Phrases as "extreme environments" do not help; please provide numbers and I suggest avoiding such vague phrases and technical details which are not necessary to understand the real important things. That a circuit is protected by a fuse is standard and not worth to be mentioned here but instead I would like to know in which way you have overcome technical limitations you mentioned at the beginning and why is your system running in 25 km height and others not (if true).
About the data analysis:
You mentioned spikes in the observations as technical problems but no details are given how they have been removed. Also possible reasons for that spikes are only very briefly mentioned but if this a problem for high altitude measurements with sonics than a more detailed discussion would be interesting.
Measuring vertical wind speeds from a moving platform is extremely challenging and strongly depends on the accuracy of the measured pitch angle; however, there is absolutely no discussion about this issue.
The section about the power spectral analysis is very brief and vague but you draw the simple conclusion that the newly developed sonic works well - this is too less for a scientific analysis and does reads more like a short progress report. To be convinced that this sensor provides useful data for scientific analysis - in particular for turbulence analysis - much more work is needed. From my point of view there is no proof that this ultrasonic works better in the stratosphere than other sensors. I had a brief look into the corresponding section of Marcua et al.: their sonic provides two decades higher spectral resolution which is striking. The only differences which might justify a new publication is that Marcua et al provide observations up to “only”18 km and your data has been observed at 25 km - however, with less resolution.
Although I greatly appreciate the development of the new sonic, the manuscript in its current state does not warrant publication. The progress compared to other similar systems is not convincingly presented and the analysis methods of the acquired data - both on the ground as a comparison and on the balloon - are rather simplistic.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-424-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-424/amt-2021-424-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 22 Feb 2022
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 744 | 263 | 57 | 1,064 | 48 | 47 |
- HTML: 744
- PDF: 263
- XML: 57
- Total: 1,064
- BibTeX: 48
- EndNote: 47
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1