Editing Talk:3016: Cold Air

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
Back In The Day, one of the idiot youngsters in a first-year chemistry lab, before leaving at the end of the afternoon, connected a water faucet to a natural-gas line (used for Bunsen burners) with a rubber hose, and opened both taps.  By the next morning, much of the natural-gas network in the heart of the city was flooded.  It took a while to get everything working again, and the cleanup wasn't cheap. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:You have the right username to mention this! ;)
:Also, the 'big trick', back in my day, was to be at the (correct end of) the science-lab bench and briefly blow into a pipe (temporarily unplugged from the burner) just as you turn your tap on. Then watch as the rest of the row (downstream of your connection to the supply) have their active flames go out. ...but I leave it to your imagination the ''three'' main problems (and various other less major ones) with trying that, with the benefit of hindsight. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone understand the physics here?  It seems clear that adding tanks of cool, dry air will make storms (and particularly tornados) far worse, not better, as the incoming hot, wet air will react with any released air to make even worse/dramatic weather patterns.  But is there more to it?  If the tanks are sealed, then effect could be muted by simply not releasing the stored air once the problem is realized, but this would be countered by at least two factors: First, the title text indicates that an additonal error was made resulting in it beingg impossible to seal the stored air completely (it escapes through the water system).  But also, any time weather got bad enough to open leaks in the system, I think this would produce a catastrophic result as the storm mixed with all the cold dry air at once? [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 23:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:My understanding is generally that explosive failure of a container with sufficient "anti-tornado" air inside is going to be non-trivial (and you face this threat constantly, in the settlement that has an "air tower", whereas tornados are relatively infrequent and mostly cross countryside). ''post-edit: And the editor who set up the current explanation seems to have had much the same idea... gratifying to know I'm on the same wavelength as at least one person!''
:And the water-connection would be bad due to (first) extremely pressurised water and (immediately afterwards) almost as pressurised air pushing through the areas plumbing systems, with unknown secondary effects such as effectively blowing empty any water-heaters that ''really'' shouldn't be left to be 'boiled dry' (after enough air bubbles in, the remaining water will soak up the burner heat and evaporate beyond design limitations, adding to the gas pressure ''and'' no longer moderating the effects on the boiler body itself; not sure exactly what will go wrong, but it may not be pretty). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing which 'city' the diagram might be of (or, indeed, how figurative Cueball's illustrative figure might be), I checked the first "tornado alley" city I could think of and 
came up with {{w|One Kansas City Place}} as how tall the taller buildings might be. In that case, just shy of 200m (with spire on top) and 40-odd floors. The dimensions of the 3000psi tank (external, but ignoring support infrastructure) is somewhere around 400m in height, perhaps 600m side to side, presumably oblate spheroidal, so approaching (less thickness of container walls) 75 ''million'' m³ of compressed air. Which is compressed, and would otherwise be around 15,000 million m³ (15 km³!) of atmosphere if ever released. As a very vague upper limit. Notwithstanding the apparent use of an existing (ex-)water-tower in the titletext. But obviously there's possibly abstract and definitely reinterpretable alternative interpretations of the quantities that might be involved. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.225|172.69.195.225]] 00:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)