Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Implementation of dynamic seeding techniques <br />at or near cloud top gave better storm coverage and response to <br />seeding. <br /> <br />-. <br />.... Addition of rawinsonde equipment to make local <br />. soundings provided more representative data for use in the computer <br />cloud models. <br /> <br />Addition of two technicians enabled more <br />extensive collection of data for later analysis. <br /> <br />"9!:- <br /> <br />A very significant conclusion which can be drawn from pre- <br />liminary Muddy Road IV data is that when any threatening storm was <br />seeded at the proper time and with the proper ice nuclei concentration, <br />it did not produce damaging hail at the ground. Conversely, when <br />hailstones of damaging size were reported at ground level, the storms <br />which produced the hail were not properly seeded. The Muddy Road <br />IV project is not alone in this respect. Operating data from many <br />other U. S. and foreigh projects show a similar pattern. <br /> <br />r'\~t or . <br />f'lM pr",.J7..1Ll~: <br /> <br />'-"h'\ I <br /> <br />From the above statement, it is clear that the primary <br />challenges in hail suppression operations today relate to the identifi- <br />cation of hail threats; and then the timely treatment of tile potential <br />hail producing storm with adequate ice nuclei concentrations. <br /> <br />C. Problem Analysis <br /> <br />Like many aspects of the agriculture industry, hail suppression <br />operations are not perfect. In retrospect, the few storm episodes <br />which inflicted crop damage stand out most vividly. Experience in <br />Muddy Road and other hail suppression operation~ indicates that <br />with the present state-of-the-art, it is not likely that all the hail from <br /> <br />31 <br />