Talk:TORRO scale

Template:Severe

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

About the Torro Class paragraph

It seems biased towards the UK when most tornadoes occur in the US. Is the Torro Scale used more commonly in the UK than other places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasontheFuzz (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing paragraph of this article is confusing at best, and erroneous at worst.

To whit : winds in a tight rotating circulation, such as a tornado, are generally 1.5 times more destructive than straight line winds of the same speed. For instance, a 300 mile per hour wind in a tight circulation will produce about the same amount of damage as a 450 mile per hour straight line wind.

The problem is that the second sentence in this paragraph is mathematically at odds with the first.

Since the destructive index of a wind is known to increase with the square of it's velocity, i.e., it follows the the same laws of kinetic energy as any moving object, we would predict that increasing a straight line wind from 300 to 450 mph would make it 2.25 times as destructive, not 1.5. And increasing the speed of any wind by the square root of 1.5 (a value of approximately 1.225) would be sufficient to increase it's destructiveness 1.5 times.

Jlyall (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although vortical winds do have more of an effect on surfaces such as structures and vegetation, the effect is chaotic and cannot be generically quantified as asserted in the article. It's unsourced as one would expect. It's also not really necessary to be added, and if it is mentioned, it's placement below the article is not the place for it. Given these reasons, the assertion has been removed. Evolauxia (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the T11 effects like? 'Incredible phenomena will occur'?