the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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. The zonal and meridional wind speed observations, which were obtained during level flight at an altitude exceeding 20 km, are presented. This is the first time that in situ wind measurements were obtained during level flight at this altitude. 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. Further analysis of the wind data will presented in a subsequent publication. 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This preprint has been withdrawn.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This preprint has been withdrawn.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
(2851 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-76', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 09 Oct 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 09 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-76', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jul 2021
The scope of this manuscript is to present the development and the performance of a sonic anemometer able to produce wind measurements in the stratosphere. While I think sensors technology is now mature to design experiments based on ultrasonic probes purposely developed for high altitude atmospheric observations, I have major concerns on the quality and the originality of the research proposed here.Although the authors cite two recent articles presenting experiments that fully achieved the goal of performing science quality measurements in the stratosphere with acoustic anemometers, they do not reference them properly and instead they make such statements as "This is the first time that in-situ wind measurements were obtained during level flight at this altitude" (meaning above 20km), as reported in the abstract at lines 22-23.ÂThis is misleading, as I will explain in the following, and the authors insist throughout the text on the fact that their measurements are (the first) being performed above 20km and during a balloon level flight, in order to differentiate their work from previous experiments based on this technology already performed in the stratosphere.ÂAs a matter of fact, Banfield et al. 2016 and Maruca et al. 2017 (both cited in the maniscript) performed experiments in which sonic anemometers have been developed (and/or modified) and tested with positive outcomes on high altitude stratospheric balloons. In the case of Banfield et al. 2016 the probe operated up to ~ 33 km while the sonic anemometer of the TILDAE experiment by Maruca et al. 2017 operated up to around 19 km. These experiments (dated back in 2015 and 2016, respectively) have been successful attempts of employing sonic anemometers for stratospheric measurements and they both returned science quality data, as testified by the statistical analyses presented in the aforementioned manuscripts, including the computation of kinetic energy spectra (see Maruca et al. 2017).ÂIndeed, what is relevant for these type of the experiments is not the peak altitude at which a sonic anemometer returned some sort of signal, but the fact that ultrasonic probes have been able to produce reliable measurements in the stratosphere - meaning above the tropopause - and that these measurements could be used to perform rigorous scientific investigations. These goals have not been achieved by the experiment presented here, since the signals reported in the plots included in the manuscript clearly show that the probe needs further development and testing, and no analysis of the data collected has been performed.ÂOn the sidebar, I would like to point out that the tropopause does not have the same altitude everywhere over the globe and it is lower at the poles, where the ultrasonic probe by Maruca et al. 2017 was operated. Thus the maximum operational altitude of 19 km reported in Maruca et al. 2017 is probably deeper in the stratosphere than the altitude of 20 km over the Da chaidan district (as reported in the present manuscript).ÂEven the evidence that the probe presented here has been tested during a level flight is rather weak, since Fig.7 shows a time series of only 300 seconds during which the altitude of the balloon was more or less constant. This time interval is really too short. However, following the narrative of the manuscript, this point should differentiate significantly the present work from Banfield et al. 2016 and Maruca et al. 2017, where ultrasonic anemometers operated only during the ascent phase of the the respective balloon flights.For these reasons I cannot suggest the publication of this manuscript on AMT. Though, I strongly encourage the authors to pursue with the development of their acoustic anemometer and to re-propose this work corroborated by the analysis of the data collected, once its design will allow to perform science valuable measurements in the stratosphere.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2021-76-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 08 Oct 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 08 Oct 2021
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-76', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 09 Oct 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', liang song, 09 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-76', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jul 2021
The scope of this manuscript is to present the development and the performance of a sonic anemometer able to produce wind measurements in the stratosphere. While I think sensors technology is now mature to design experiments based on ultrasonic probes purposely developed for high altitude atmospheric observations, I have major concerns on the quality and the originality of the research proposed here.Although the authors cite two recent articles presenting experiments that fully achieved the goal of performing science quality measurements in the stratosphere with acoustic anemometers, they do not reference them properly and instead they make such statements as "This is the first time that in-situ wind measurements were obtained during level flight at this altitude" (meaning above 20km), as reported in the abstract at lines 22-23.ÂThis is misleading, as I will explain in the following, and the authors insist throughout the text on the fact that their measurements are (the first) being performed above 20km and during a balloon level flight, in order to differentiate their work from previous experiments based on this technology already performed in the stratosphere.ÂAs a matter of fact, Banfield et al. 2016 and Maruca et al. 2017 (both cited in the maniscript) performed experiments in which sonic anemometers have been developed (and/or modified) and tested with positive outcomes on high altitude stratospheric balloons. In the case of Banfield et al. 2016 the probe operated up to ~ 33 km while the sonic anemometer of the TILDAE experiment by Maruca et al. 2017 operated up to around 19 km. These experiments (dated back in 2015 and 2016, respectively) have been successful attempts of employing sonic anemometers for stratospheric measurements and they both returned science quality data, as testified by the statistical analyses presented in the aforementioned manuscripts, including the computation of kinetic energy spectra (see Maruca et al. 2017).ÂIndeed, what is relevant for these type of the experiments is not the peak altitude at which a sonic anemometer returned some sort of signal, but the fact that ultrasonic probes have been able to produce reliable measurements in the stratosphere - meaning above the tropopause - and that these measurements could be used to perform rigorous scientific investigations. These goals have not been achieved by the experiment presented here, since the signals reported in the plots included in the manuscript clearly show that the probe needs further development and testing, and no analysis of the data collected has been performed.ÂOn the sidebar, I would like to point out that the tropopause does not have the same altitude everywhere over the globe and it is lower at the poles, where the ultrasonic probe by Maruca et al. 2017 was operated. Thus the maximum operational altitude of 19 km reported in Maruca et al. 2017 is probably deeper in the stratosphere than the altitude of 20 km over the Da chaidan district (as reported in the present manuscript).ÂEven the evidence that the probe presented here has been tested during a level flight is rather weak, since Fig.7 shows a time series of only 300 seconds during which the altitude of the balloon was more or less constant. This time interval is really too short. However, following the narrative of the manuscript, this point should differentiate significantly the present work from Banfield et al. 2016 and Maruca et al. 2017, where ultrasonic anemometers operated only during the ascent phase of the the respective balloon flights.For these reasons I cannot suggest the publication of this manuscript on AMT. Though, I strongly encourage the authors to pursue with the development of their acoustic anemometer and to re-propose this work corroborated by the analysis of the data collected, once its design will allow to perform science valuable measurements in the stratosphere.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2021-76-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 08 Oct 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2021-76/amt-2021-76-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', liang song, 08 Oct 2021
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
609 | 317 | 55 | 981 | 52 | 50 |
- HTML: 609
- PDF: 317
- XML: 55
- Total: 981
- BibTeX: 52
- EndNote: 50
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1