Talk:Storm glass

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorological instruments and data task force.

‹See TfM›

Glass Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Cecil Adams is widely read and respected, but he is by no stretch of the imagination an expert. nor are his experiments scientific. The column in question (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2963/can-storm-glasses-predict-the-weather) suggests a very undisciplined testing method - didn't use a standard storm glass, but built one himself. Storm glasses are probably random and not accurate at all, but to quote Cecil Adams as proof of this is insufficient. I suggest the Cecil Adams reference be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupaxtai (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I qualified the statement a bit. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the call to remove the section- there is wider literature on the phenomenon which isn't covered and so this gives undue prominence to an unscientific study. Either the section needs fleshing out or deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.253.8 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry of...

It occurs to me that there's a healthy bit of chemistry/physics that happens with one of these things...

You start with two different solvents (water/ethanol), with different densities. You throw them into a tall cyllendar and let them sit. They will differentiate to a (probably quite limited) extent. You then saturate the solution with several compounds, and let them precipitate out. The solution is predisposed to not convect much, and later redisolving of the compounds makes the solution at the bottom denser still than the solution at the top, further curtailing convection...

Depending on how well the compounds dissolve in either solvent, I could see them precipitating out near the bottom or near the top, where the two solvents are less mixed, and I've little idea how the mixed solvents actually affects solubility, or for that matter multiple disolved compounds.... Ah, much to think on. 166.147.88.15 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the reference to Darwin as his work was not relevant to this article was removed by me and I am asking members of Skywarn Forum to look at making and using three devices each (just so the talk page can have more flesh.)

Weatherlawyer (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]