The Response of the Dines Anemometer to Gusts and Comparisons with Cup Anemometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dines pressure tube anemometer was the primary wind speed recording instrument used in Australia until it was replaced by Synchrotac cup anemometers in the 1990s. Simultaneous observations of the gust wind speeds recorded using both types of anemometers during tropical cyclones have, however, raised questions about the equivalency of the gust wind speeds recorded using the two instruments. An experimental study of the response of both versions of the Dines anemometer used in Australia shows that the response of the anemometer is dominated by the motion of the float manometer used to record the wind speed. The amplitude response function shows the presence of two resonant peaks, with the amplitude and frequency of the peaks depending on the instrument version and the mean wind speed. Comparison of the gust wind speeds recorded using Dines and Synchrotac anemometers using random process and linear system theory shows that, on average, the low-speed Dines anemometer records values 2%–5% higher than those recorded using a Synchrotac anemometer under the same conditions, while the high-speed Dines anemometer records values 3%–7% higher, depending on the mean wind speed and turbulence intensity. These differences are exacerbated with the adoption of the WMO-recommended 3-s moving average gust wind speed when reporting the Synchrotac anemometer gust wind speeds, rising to 6%–12% and 11%–19% for low- and high-speed Dines anemometers, respectively. These results are consistent with both field observations and an independent extreme value analysis of simultaneously observed gust wind speeds at seven sites in northern Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".