But, the components in Helmholtz Decomposition theorem mean how does the vector contribute to divergence and curl in the small neighborhood, not at a point. That is not given by only one vector at the point.

Although, many scientists say that divergence and curl can be given at a point, they are never given at a point. Their mistake is the same one with “Zeno paradox”. They say that “The flying arrow is rest”.

Some scientist was kind to teach me that if we can get the normal component and tangential component on the boundary, we can get the scalar potential and vector potential. Why can we get them without getting the divergence and curl on that point.

If the contribution of the vector to “divergence ” and “curl ” is considered as “components”, you should consider other 2 kinds of components. They are “non-divergent and irrotational component” and “divergent and rotational component” outside of “divergent component” and “ rotational component”.

I can’t believe that scientists have been satisfied with just two components about this phenomena.

Taking 4 kinds of components, I will show you some example of vector fields.

(1) the uniform stream

You can make sure the existence of the component which does not contribute to divergence nor to curl to think about uniform stream.

For example, we can consider a uniform stream run eastward with 5 knots.

This flow has a scalar potential, because it is irrotatinal. We can consider=5x+C. The flow vector **F**=＝5**i.** Then the divergence ＝０.

And this flow has a vector potential **A** , because it is non-divergent. We can consider **A** =5y**k**(upward unit vector). Then, F==5**i****.** Then the curl ＝０．

According to Wikipedia, Helmholtz Decomposition says like below,

But, ＝０ and＝０ for the uniform flow.

Although, Helmhpltz Decomposition says that any vector F can be decomposed into divergence component and curl component, but if the vector field is uniform flow, it is not true.

(2) electric field

There is a electric field around a charged particle. If other unit charge is put in that field, it is forced outward or inward to the charged particle. At any point any charg is forced, and they make a force vector field.

This force vector field is composed of 100% divergence component as shown below.

(3) magnetic field

Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents, which can be macroscopic currents in wires, or microscopic currents associated with electrons in atomic orbits. The magnetic field B is defined in terms of force on moving charge in the Lorentz force Law.

According to Maxwell’s equations, the corresponding formula for magnetic fields: So, the divergence of B is always 0.

This magnetic force vector field is composed of 100% curl component as shown below.

(4) generally, liquid or gas flow has all components of 4 kinds

The flow of liquid or gas has generally all 4 kinds of components.

Because, divergence is given by 、and curl is given by .

Or, in spherical coordinats, divergence and curl are given as below,

From these equations, I think the vector F basically contributes to both of divergence and curl components . Because, divergence and curl are given by the same vector F.

There is big difference between the vector fields of electromagnetic wave and the flow vector field of liquid. There certainly exist the scalar potential for electro field, and the vector field for magnetic field. But scalar potentials and vector potentials of the flow vector of liquid or gas do not exist in the tangible form.

If there is a vector field F, you can calculate divergence field and curlfield . But they might be dependent on each other. If they have some intersectional parts like shown below

If F has the component that contribute to both divergence and curl, F can’t be decomposed into divergent components and curl components.

If you cling onto Helmholtz Decomposition, you should prove that F has not the component which contribute to both divergence and curl.

Or right from the start, is there not the component which contribute to both divergence and curl in the flow vector field, not in the electromagnetic wave phenomena.

]]>

He is kind to answer my question as shown below,

I feel very weird in his sentence “This is referring to an abstract mathematical orthogonality of the curl and divergence operators, and not to a literal geometric orthogonality of the vectors.” .

These idea may be popular among hydrokinetic scientists, or among meteorologists.

But, I think these idea is infantile mistakes which is out of the basic mathematical vector concepts.

It’s Ok to think about an abstract mathematical orthogonality of the curl and divergence. But you have to check the orthogonality of them goes clear the orthogonality in the real world.

I think the components of vector is mistakenly thought among the hydrokinetics. “The components” are given at a point. Forexample, please see next page.

But, “the components in Helmholtz Decomposition” should be given in small space, not at a point. They should be determined in small space, or with neighbor vectors.

The basic mistake among hydrokinetics is that they think the non-divergence components and irrotational components are given at a point. They think that they can get these components at appoint by using delta functions and Fourier transformations. But, the “components” in Helmholtz Decomposition are not innate concepts such as “the vertical components and the horizontal component”. So, they should be given after calculation of “the divergence field and the curl field” in very small erea, but not at a point.

To determine the differential value at a point is the same mistake as Zeno paradox. One of Zeno paradox says that the flying arrow is stopping. You should think the arrow is flying or not, with velocity. But if you infinitely shorten the time of the arrow flying, and you can think the arrow is stopping at each second.

To be stopping or not should be considered by velocity, or “the length”/”the time”.

To shorten the time infinitely is Ok as long as time interval is not 0, for thinking the arrow is flying or not.

I don’t agree with using the ward “components” in Helmholtz Decomposition, but in this article, use it according to commonly used.

The non-divergence components and curl components are given as bellow

The divergence field and the curl field can be given by calculating from any vector field without Helmholtz Decomposition. But, these two field are not guaranteed to separately exist. If you just had mistook these field separately exist, you can get a scalar potential and a vector potential.

But if you want to prove Helmholtz Decomposition, you should prove that there is no component that contribute to both the divergence and curl composition.

If any vector has a component which contribute to both 0f the divergence component and curl component,

But, if any vector has not the component which contribute to both components,

]]>Acording to Wikipedia, Helmholtz Decompose theorem states that any sufficiently smooth, rapidly decaying vector field in three dimensions can be resolved into the sum of an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field

I want to show you a simple example in two dimension cooerdinates system as below figure.

Fig 1 Calculus equation for the divergence and the curl

The divergence of vector F at a point o is calculated by using blue vectors, or V1, U2,V3 and U4 in the figure above , and the curl of vector F is calculated by using red vectors, or U1,V2,U3 and V4.

All of vectors which are decomposed from vector F for calculating the divergence and curl have been used.

So, you can say this is Helmholtz Decomposition.

Certainly, you can think about an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field with any vector field.

But if vector F has some component that contribute to both vector field, you can’t say that the vector field decomposed into an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field as showing bellow.

Fig 2 If F(r) has some component that contribute to both

If vector F is smooth, U4 bears distinct relationship to U3 in Fig 1.

Fig 3 the conditions for smooth vector field

U4 that is constitutive part of divergence is given by a equation include U3 that is constitutive part of curl.

So, you can say that Any vector field has some component which contributes to both roles(components) of divergence and curl.

Therefore, Helmholtz Decomposition is wrong.

]]>*A vector and its components*

What is a vector? A vector is a quantity that has both magnitude and direction.

Vectors in multiple-dimension coordinate systems can **be broken up(=decomposed)** into their *component **vectors*. In the three-dimensional case, this results in a *x- component, *a

The components are broken up from a vector at just a point.

The components generally mean the elements which are broken up (=decomposed) from a vector in Cartisian coordinate system. Each component is independent to each other.

* The components in Helmholtz Decomposition*

But the components used in Helmholtz Decomposition are not the same components of vector in Catisian coordinate system. They represent spatial aspect in a vector field.

I think that the “components” in Helmholtz Decomposition are rather the “roles” of a vector within the neighbors for divergence and curl. They should be decided within neighbor vectors.

Please, think about a vector field without Helmholtz Decomposition. Thare is just a vector field **F** at first.

So you can calculate and get the divergence field by **F**, and the curl field by **F**. Helmholtz Decomposition is not needed to calculate these calculation.

The divergence field made by**F** has an irrotational vector by (**F**), and the curl field made by ∇×**F** has a non-divergence vector by (**F**) .

An irrotational vector field has a scalar potential =∇・**F**, and a non-divergence(solenoidal) vector field has a __vector potential A__

In Meteorology, is called velocity potentials, and **A i**s called stream functions.

Here, you have gotten the divergence vector field which is curl-free, and the curl vector field **A **which is non-divergence from a vector **F**.

** **Many articles about Helmholtz Decomposition are similer to these expositions above.

But, you have never guaranteed that the sum of these two vectors make up the original vector, or the original vector **F** can be decomposed into these two of vectors. You have just gotten an irrotational vector and non-divergence vector from F, but the sum of two may not 100% of **F**. Because, these elements, or a curl-free component and a divergence-free component are not the components in Cartisian coordinate system.

The original vector **F** may have the rest of them. Or the vector **F** might have contribute to both “components”( I want to say them “roles”).

If the vector included some components( or roles) which contributes to both of curl components and divergent components, the original vector could not perfectly decomposed into a curl-free component and a non-divergence component.

* the right way to prove Helmholtz Decomposition 1*

For all that, I can prove that Helmholtz Decomposition theorem is right.

I will show you it with diagram bellow.

I want to get the divergence and curl at a point (r), at the center of figure above. Therefor, I need F2 and F4 to get differential value of F with x axis, and F1 and F3 to get the differential value of F with y axis. F1,F2,F3 and F4 act for 100% of F(r) to calculate the differential of F at this point

And each of F1,F2,F3 and F4 can be decomposed into x components and y components in the cartesian coordinate system. They are U1 and V1 from F1, U2,V2 from F2, U3 and V3 from F3, U4 and V4 from F4.

Therefor, U1,U2,U3,U4,V1,V2,V3 and V4 act for 100% of a vector F at this point for calculation of space derivative. And half of them that is V1,V3,U2 and U4 contribute only to divergence, and another half of them that is V4,V2,U3 and U1 contribute only to curl.

So, we can say that we use all of differential element of F and use half of them to calculate the divergence**F**, and use another half of them to calculate the . So, The vector **F** can be decomposed into （**F**） and （）. This is the perfect proof for Helmholtz Decomposition.

*the right way to prove Helmholtz Decomposition 2*

I know that there is another way to prove Helmhltz Decomposition thorem. If you can find an identity that shoes some vector function equal to the sum of non-divergence vector and curl-free vector, it is the another way that can prove Helmholtz Decomposition.

]]>It can be expressed like

based on three perpendicular spatial axes generally designated x, y, and z. Here, **i,j,k** are the unit vectors in the coordinate system respectively.

While, the differential operator “nabra” is similarly expressed as well as a vector.

So, this can be thought as a kind of vector.

But, we need to know there is big differences between a general vector and this differential operator, “nabra”.

**A general vector is defined at a point. But, differential operator “nabra” is defined in the small area, not at a point.**

Many scientist neglect this differences. For example, there is an article about Helmhltz Decomposition in Wikipedia like bellow

In the upper quoted article, the first(upper) group of equations is OK, because they are expressed at a point. But the second(under) group of equations is not allowed.

We can easily get a sample flow which has divergences by transvers components and rotations by longitudinal components. They are not 0.

For example, let us think a flow like following Figure.

The sample shows that a flow field is squared off at 50m intervals. And we can get the velocities at each grid point. Their values are shown in the Table.

So, we can get two components at any grid. They are the longitudinal component and transverse component.

And, we can calculate the divergence with transverse components, and rotation with longitudinal components.

They both may not be 0.

The mistake in Wiki’s article is caused by the neglect of the differences between the general vector and the difference operator.

Someone might say that you could decompose a vector into two components which are the longitudinal component and transvers component at the center point by using Fourier transformation and Invers Fourier transformation.

But, I want to say that the differential is not given at a point even if using Fourier transformation and invers Fourier trans formation. It is given in the very small area, but not at a point.

]]>For example, 200hPa charts show the situations on the plane of about 12000m height.

We can consider the wind data on 200hPa as a flow vectors in two-dimensions.

JMA and NOAA are making “velocity potentials” and “stream functions” from these wind data sets by applying “Helmholtz Decomposition”.

But I think that Helmholtz Decomposition is wrong, so these velocity potentials and stream functions are made by their mistakes.

I want to show you that how these potentials are made.

**1) On the Helmholtz Decomposition theorem**

There is a theorem called **Helmholtz Decomposition **that says any flow can be separated into irrotational divergent flow and non-divergence rotational flow. And velocity potentials can be calculated from the irrotational flow and steam functions can be calculated from the non-divergence flow.

JMA and NOAA are publishing velocity potentials and stream functions on net.

Acording to Helmholtz Decomposition, two kinds of these potentials are independent from one another. So, if you wanted to analize the distributions of divergence in some layer, you could do it by just analyses of velocity potential map.

From Wikipedia, Helmholtz Decomposition is given as follows

・・・・・・・・・・・・・１）

Here, **F**l means irrotational divergent flow, and **F**t means non-divergence rotational flow.

I show you Fig.1 to image the Helmholtz Decomposition..

Fig.1 Illustration for Helmholtz Decomposition

**2) The third component**

When we think about composition of vector, that is generically considered as projections of a vector which is given at one point onto the reference axes.

But the components in the Helmholtz Decomposition are given as roles which play as a flow in the set of neighbor flows. So, you should think about the component which play both role of curl and divergence, over and above the irrotational divergence component and the non-divergent rotational component.

If there is the third component which play both roles of curl and divergence in any flow, the components of any flow should be shown as Fig.2.

Fig.2 The components of any flow

Even if there is the third component, you can calculate **F** and ∇×**F** distributions, and therefor you can get velocity potential and stream function. And furthermore, you can get **F**l and **F**t.

But as you can see inFig.2, the composition of these two components does not match the original flow.

So, I can say that Helmholtz Decomposition is wrong.

**3) the components of a “true” actual flow**

Actually, there is a fair percentage of non-divergence and irrotational component in actual flow.

So, when you divide a flow into some components, you should think about the fourth component which has neither divergence nor curl(rotation).

Fig.3 the 4 components of a general flow

According to Equation 2), φ is calculated from the term of **F**. So, **F**l should consist of the components +.

Fig.4 is calculated with the components of +

Fig.4 **F**l is calculated with the component of

And, vector potential **A** is calculated with the term of **F**.

So **F**t should consist of the components ②＋③.

Fig.5 **F**t is calculated with the components of ②＋③

Therefore, Equation 1) is not correct. Therefore we should say that **Helmholtz Decomposition is wrong**.

Fig.6 Helmholtz Decomposition is not correct

After publishing this article, I should edit or remove my latest blog “On the components in Helmholtz Decomposition Theorem”, but I daringly keep it on the Net.

**4) Another Decomposition**

There is another way to decompose any wind into two components. You can decompose any wind into geostrophic wind component and ageostrophic wind component.

Geostrophic winds are theoretically given from the contours(heights of an isobaric surface). Geostrophic winds blow along contours in inverse proportion to the gap of contour lines. So, geostrophic winds are perfectly non-divergent wind.

And, because the natural winds blow as quasi-geostrophic winds, they mostly consist of geostrophic winds.

Ageostrophic winds are given as the difference calculated by subtracting geostrophic wind from the original(analyzed) winds.

So, there is no doubt in this way to divide any flow into geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind.

I show you a illustration to image the decomposition which make a flow divided into geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind inFig.7.

Fig.7 The Decomposition into Geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind

And, Fig.8 is an example for analyzed(original) wind(black arrow), geostrophic wind(blue arrow) and ageostrophic wind(red arrow).

Fig.8 an example for geostrophic wind(blue), ageostrophic wind(red)

and analyzed wind(black) on 20th Jun 2011

Fig.8 shows that the composition of geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind is nearly equal to original analyzed wind. It might be expected.

We can’t say that Geostrophic wind (blue arrow) take out 100% of the non-divergent component from natural(analyzed) wind(black arrow). But it mostly consist of them.

Ageostrophic wind component(red arrow) is approximately compounded of divergence component which is shown (+) in Fig.3.

Therefore, ageostrophic wind is nearly divergent wind which would be given from velocity potential.

Here I want to show the divergent wind and curl wind on the same day. The divergent winds were calculated from velocity potentials, and the curl winds were calculated from stream functions in Fig.9.

Fig.9 an example for curl wind(blue), divergent wind (red)

and analyzed wind(black) on 20th Jun 2011

After seeing Fig.9, I had been left speechless for a while. Because the composition of divergent wind and curl wind is nearly equal to the original(analyzed) wind.

Had I mistook in former article related Fig.6?

Please put it aside for a while, and confirm that the divergent winds are fairly equal to ageostrophic winds.

This is an example for that **F**l in Fig.4 is nearly equal to the component of in Fig.7. We can say that ageostrophic winds are nearly equal to divergent winds.

**5) about stream function**

Comparing Fig.9 to Fig.8, curl winds **F**t calculated from stream functions nearly equal to geostrophic winds.

And we have confirmed that the composition of divergent wind **F**l and curl wind **F**t is nearly equal to the original(analyzed) wind. This can be a proof for that Helmholtz Decomposition is crrect.

Here, I doubt if these stream function was truly calculated by using equation 3).

Please look at Fig.5 again.

Stream function must be driven from a vector potential expressed as below.

Therefore, the components of just and in Fig.5 is useful to calculate **F**. Because, even if the component and were used, they came to 0 as a consequence. So, **F**t definitely not be nearly equal to geostrophic wind. **F**t should be fairly small than geostrophic wind.

According to equation 2) and 3), the composition of **F**l and **F**t should be smaller than original analyzed wind.

There is a way to make these stream functions published from JMA or NOAA.

If you priliminaly beleaved Helmholtz Decomposition is right(Fig.1), you could get stream function from the difference calculated by subtracting divergent wind from the original(analyzed) wind.

But, there are 4 kinds of components in any actual wind.

Fig.10 Actual way to get “Stream function”

It is all right to get **F**l from the equation 2). But **F**t must be calculated as the differences calculated by subtracting **F**l from original wind, for getting equation 1). In any another way, **F**l＋**F**t would not be equal to original **F**.

To take this way is definitely distinct from Helmholtz Decomposition. This way is the same way to separate a wind into geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind.

Here, I must confess that I don’t know exactly how to make stream function. Please ask some person who know how to calculate the stream function, if you know. And ask him to publish the way how to calculate the stream function. I think it have been top-secret among them.

]]>

**1. The normal decomposition of vector**

Talking of the decomposition, you generally think about projected components of a given vector on the reference axes or rectangular coordinates.

And the vector projected on the reference axes is called the components of a given vector.

Fig.1 a normal decomposition and components

But you can also think about a decomposition into non orthogonal directions.

If a given vector is equal to the vector sum of other two vectors, these two vectors are called as components of a given vector.

Fig.2 a decomposition into non-right angle components

The basic concept of vector is that two vectors which are not perpendicular to each other have the components of each other. The dimension of it is given by the length from the foot of perpendicular to the point of intersection of two vectors.

Fig.3 a vector component of a vector on another vector direction

When the directions of two vectors are perpendicular to each other, the foot of perpendicular to other axis is on the foot of other vectors. So, in these situations, you can say that these two vectors are independent of each other.

Fig.4 the component on orthogonal axis

In other words, when two vectors are perpendicular to each other, one does not influence the other.

The normal vector decomposition is thinkable at a point.

**2. The decomposition in Helmholtz Decomposition theorem**.

Generally you can’t think about the components of vectors which can’t be decomposed.

But the components that come up by the decomposition of Helmholtz Decomposition are not simply the projections of the flow vectors. They should be called “Roles”. They are a curl-free divergence component and a divergence-free curl component. Those components are given as “Roles” of a flow at a point in the set of adjacent flows.

These components are not thinkable at just a point. It is given in a region.

**3. It is not needed to get a curl distribution and divergence**

Helmholtz Decomposition is not needed to get distributions of curl and divergence.

You can calculate “a distribution of curl” and “a distribution of divergence” by calculating F and F respectively.

It is not necessary to use Helmholtz Decomposition theorem to get them. Therefor to be able to uniquely obtain these distributions can not be the proof of Helmholtz Decomposition.

You just be able to calculate these distributions, so you should not think that any flow is decomposed into two flows.

**4. The component which plays the both roles of curl and divergence**

Because a decomposition in Helmholtz Decomposition can be thought as roles of any flow at a point in the neighborhood, you should think about a component which plays both roles of curl and divergence.

If you don’t think of it, you preliminary use the Helmholtz Decomposition theorem without the proof.

If you would prove that there is no component which plays the both role of curl and divergence in any flows, you can say that Helmholtz Decomposition is correct.

At first you should think about a component which plays the both roles of curl and divergence.

Fig.5 If any flow has the component which play the both roles

In Fig.5, **F** is any flow which has both of curl and divergence. And **F**l shows a divergence component as a curl-free component, and **F**t shows a curl component as a divergence-free component, and **F**b shows a component which plays the both roles of curl and divergence.

These **F**l and **F**t are borroeing character from the article of ”Longitudinal and transverse fields” in Wikipedia.

The substitute character “l” means as shown in Fig.6,

Fig.6 the longitudinal component

and “t” means as shown inFig.7,

Fig.7 the transversal component

I might have mistook “**k**” what he/she wrote, but I beleave that “k” should be the gradient directin of potential.

These illustrations are made by myself, so if there is any fault in these illustrations, it is my fault.

As we know, they can calculate “a distribution of curl” and “a distribution of divergence” by calculate**F** and**F** .

Here, if they had mistook a flow had been decomposed into a curl-free flow and a divergence-free flow, they could calculate a velocity potential from the distribution of divergence, and a stream function from distribution of curl.

But actually they just calculated the distributions of divergence by (**F**l+**F**b）, not by （**F**l’）, and the distributions of curl by **(****F**t+**F**b）, not by （**F**t’）.

Therefore the composition **G** of these two flows does not match the original flow **F**.

If there is no component which plays the both roles of curl and divergence , Helmholtz Decomposition theorem is correct as showing in Fig.8.

Fig.8 If any flow has not the component which play the both roles

In fact, there is an example in real world. I may say that an electromagnetic wave has an electric field as a scalar potential φ, and a magnetic field as a vector potential **A** as shown in Fig.9. But I have to say that I don’t know exactly the electromagnetic wave.

Fig.9 is drawn from Wiki.

Fig.9 The electromagnetic wave

In the article of Wikipedia, an electromagnetic wave has an electric field as a scalar potential and a magnetic field as a vector potential, and they are perpendicular to each other.

In this case, the force given in an electric field and the force in a magnetic field are perpendicular to each other.

In electromagnetic wave case, you can confirm to exist a set of a scalar potential and a vector potential. But in fluid case, we can not confirm to exist these potential.

**5. How to verify the Helmholtz Decomposition**

As I said before, if Helmholtz Decomposition is right, there is not a component which plays the both roles of curl and divergence.

Then

1) The composition of a curl component and a divergence component is equal to the original flow(vector)

2) The two of components, a curl component flow and a divergence flow are perpendicular to each other.

And a curl component flow is directed along the line of stream functions, and a divergence flow is directed toward perpendicular to iso-velocity potential lines.

Therefore at any point, the lines of stream function and the line of iso-velocity potential line are on a parallel with each other.(Please see Fig.6 and Fig.7)

Stream function is expressed by the dimension of “vector potentials” in the horizontal plane as vector potential. The direction of the stream function as a “vector potential” stands up perpendicular to the plane.(Please see Fig.7)

**6. Current status**

I will show you some current status of “the velocity potential” and “stream function”.

The natural wind in our atmosphere generally blow horizontally, because the air is generally in the condition of hydrostatic equilibrium. So we can think the natural wind as a flow in a horizontal plane.

NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and JMA(Japan Meteorological Agency) etc. beleave Helmholtz Decomposition is correct, and they publish their data of “the velocity potential” and “the stream function”

**6.1) Do the compositions of “the divergent flow” and “curl flow” match the original winds?**

JMA had been publishing their data on the net until October 2011.

By using those data, I will show you how “the velocity potentials” and “the stream functions” are going. The following examples are about on 20 Jun 2011.

Fig.10 shows the distributions of the velocity potentials and divergent winds on the water vapor imagery.

Fig.10 distribution of the velocity potentials and divergent wind

And Fig.11 shows the distribution of stream functions and curl winds.

Fig.11 distribution of stream functions and curl winds

If Helmholtz Decomposition theorem is correct, the vector sum of these divergent winds and curl winds should match the original winds.

Fig.12 shows the original winds(black) and the vector sums of two kinds of components(purple).

Fig.12 The comparison between analyzed winds(black) and composed winds

I first drew analyzed wind with black arrows, and after that I drew composed wind with purple arrows. So if the composed winds perfectly match the analyzed winds, all of arrows should be purple.

You may think that analyzed winds( original winds) match the vector sum of divergent winds and curl winds. But I can see the difference between these two kinds of winds.

Fig.13 shows the differences between original winds and the vector sum of divergent winds and curl winds.

Fig.13 the differences between analyzed winds and

vector sum of two components

There are some differences about 5m/sec in some area.

Here, what do you think with Fig.13. Permissible? or Impermissible?

I do not know how to make these potentials, but I want to applaud the efforts of them. Good jobs!

**6.2) Are “the divergent wind” and “the curl wind” perpendicular to each other?**

If “Helmholtz Decomposition” is correct, “the divergent wind” and “the curl wind” should be perpendicular to each other.

But these two kinds of winds are not perpendicular to each other as we can see in Fig.10 and Fig.11.

And if “Helmholtz Decomposition” is correct, two kinds of isolines of “the velocity potential” and “the stream function” should be parallel to each other as we have seen in Fig.6 and Fig.7.

But these two kinds of iso-lines are not parallel to each other as we can see in Fig.13.

<by NOAA data>

We can also see the same consequences in NOAA data. Fig.14 and Fig.15 show the velocity potential and stream function respectively. They were published in NOAA home page(http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/hurricane/).

Fig.14 The example of Velocity potential distribution

(30days mean from 16 May to 14 June in 2014)

Fig.15 The example of Stream function distribution

(30days mean from 16 May to 14 June in 2014)

Fig.14 shows 30days means of 200hPa Velocity potential and divergent wind from 16 May to 14 June in 2014(top of them).

Fig.15 shows 30days mean of 200hPa stream function as the same term as Fig.14. The bottoms of them show anomalies of velocity potential, but now it is out of our argument.

To see how to go on the two potentials, I draw stream function on velocity potential in Fig.16. In Fig.16, blue lines show stream functions, and red lines show velocity potential. And red arrows show divergent wind.

Fig.16 is made by Fig.14 and Fig.15.

Fig.16 velocity potential on stream function at 200hPa as same term as Fig.14,15

The curl wind(=divergence-free wind) blow parallel to blue line(stream function). So we can see that divergent wind and curl wind are not orthogonal to each other.

**As far as has been hitherto seen, we can say Helmholtz Decomposition is not correct**.

**I think Helmholtz Decomposition has been preventing the progress of Meteorology**.

]]>

If we lost Helmholtz Decomposition theorem, does it become problems?

No, not at all.

If you want to know the distributions of divergence of flow **F**, you can get them from just original flows by .

You don’t need to use velocity potential.

You usually use weather map to do meteorological analysis. That is an analysis in the plane. And if you want to analyze a distribution of divergence, you regularly use the velocity potential.

But, I have already proved that Helmholtz Decomposition is mathematically wrong. You should not use Helmholtz Decomposition, and therefor velocity potentials.

There is another simple way to decompose any flow into two kinds of flows. They are geostrophic winds and ageostrophic winds.

Geostrophic winds are calculated from heights, and actual winds consist largely of these geostrophic winds, and these are perfectly non-divergent wind component.

And ageostrophic wind is calculated as a vector difference of actual wind and a geostrophic wind.

Although, it may have a very little part of non-divergent component, you can use this ageostrophic wind instead of divergent wind from velocity potential.

The worst effect of “Helmholtz Decomposition” is that you think that you can analyze the distributions of the flows by only “velocity potential”.

You can decompose any flow into geostrophic wind and ageostrophic wind. And at some instance, geostrophic wind is a solenoidal flow. But in the next instance, it may influence ageostrophic wind. I might want to say that there is no solenoidal flows.

Any way, it is wrong to consider that you can find the cause of convergence in upper layer from only velocity potential.

Ageostrophic winds bring very similar consequents to the wind from velocity potential which are driven from “Helmholtz Decomposition” for the analysis of divergence distributions.

This decomposition which decompose any flows into geostrophic winds and ageostrophic winds has not any problems at all, because it is just applied to basic vector difference.

Below are qaoted from (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/glossary/geostrophic_winds.html) for geostrophic wind.

Geostrophic wind Theoretical wind which results from the equilibrium between horizontal components of the pressure gradient force and the Coriolis force (deviating force) above the friction layer. Only these two forces (no frictional force) are supposed to act on the moving air. It blows parallel to straight isobars or contours

And according to a definition, geostrophic winds blow in a parallel direction with a inversely proportional to interval of contours. The contour of geopotential are supposed to be continuous. So geostrophic winds are supposed to be continuous, and solenoidal winds.

Contours of geopotential looks like stream function from Helmholtz Decomposition theorem.

Actually, we can see that the contour are similar to stream function. For example, I show the weather map in the Asia area at 12Z on July 31 in 2011 inFig.5.4.

Fig5.4 Similarities between geostrophic wind and the wind driven from stream function

Meanwhile, ageostrophic wind is the vector which is the rest after substructing geostrophic wind from the actual wind. And actual wind blows nearly geostrophic motion.

So, ageostrophic wind is generally small, but it has all divergent component of the actual wind.

So, ageostrophic wind is similar to divergent wind from Helmholtz Decomposition theorem.

But, ageostrophic wind has not potentials like velocity potentials.

Fig5.6 shows the similarities between ageostrophic wind and divergent wind driven from velocity potential in the vicinty of large clouds seen in the south of Japen.

Fig5.5 similarities between ageostrophic wind and divergent wind driven from velocity potential

By this decomposition, ageostrophic wind has all of divergence component of actual(or analysis) wind. And divergent wind is supposed to have all of divergence too.

So, The distributions of divergence from both ageostrophic winds and divergent winds from velocity potentials are supposed to be almost the same.

Fig5.6 Conparison of distributions of divergences by using two types of winds

upper: from ageostrophinc wind,

lower: from divergent wind from “Helmholtz Decomposition”

These divergent distributions are drawn on the water vapor imagery. The plus divergence of the upper layer are closely-linked to clouds, and minus divergence( convergence) are closely-linked to black area.

Whichever wind you choose to calculate the distribution of divergent, you can get almost the same consequence.

But if you choose the divergent wind from Helmholtz Decomposition, it is the end.

If you choose ageostrophic wind, you can go more.

]]>The formation of the subtropical jet ,the subtropical heigh and the Hadley circulation must be explained without contradiction. By introducing the theory of ageostrophic wind into the general circulation, I would like to propose the new Hadley circulation model.

In the modern meteorology air motion is thought to be the one in which the geostrophic approximation holds good because air undergoes the geostrophic adjustment. However, the result of the objective analysis in the present numerical forecasting model shows ageostrophic wind element clearly. The present numerical forecasting uses the primitive model. Judging from its accuracy, I can say that the primitive model represents the real air motion almost exactly. The analyzed wind in that model has clear ageostrophic wind element. So it is impossible to think of the real air as the one in which the geostrophic approximation holds.

And in the present general circulation model the relations between the Hadley circulation and the subtropical jet contradict each other. But taking ageostrophic motion into account, I have found the Hadley circulation model which includes the subtropical jet.

Some meteorologists insist that there is no contradiction between them. The reason is that both the descending branch of the Hadley circulation and the Ferrel circulation in the westerly wind belt cause the concentration of heat and then form the subtropical jet. According to them, air which causes the thermal concentration just releases the heat and then descends. Their theory is as old as the idea of thermal element at the beginning of the 19th century and cannot explain heat conduction reasonably. In the real meridional cross section, you often find the subtropical jet which cannot be explained by the theory of thermal wind.

By introducing ageostrophic motion, I would like to propose the new general circulation model in which the formation of the subtropical jet and the Hadley circulation can be explained reasonably. First, I will talk about ageostrophic motion.

**＜1. Ageostrophic Motion＞**

Suppose you put an air parcel quietly on a surface which has the pressure gradient and the air parcel has the same density as the surrounding air at that height. How does this air parcel behave? To make things easier, I assume that the surrounding air never changes its pressure gradient and the air parcel never mingles with the surrounding air.

The forces which act on the air parcel are the pressure gradient and Coriolis forces. At first the Coriolis force doesn’t act on it, because the speed of the air parcel is zero. Only the pressure gradient force acts on it. So the air parcel starts to sink perpendicular to contours of height.

The following equation of motion can be obtained:

where **V** is the air parcel’s velocity after t time and f, g and ∇h denote the Coriolis parameter, the acceleration of gravity and the gradient of the geopotential height, respectively.

Geostrophic wind at this moment Vg gives

Subtracting the latter from the former leads to

This equation reduces to

where a vector **A** keeps on rotating with a frequency f. Its period T is

denotes the rotating angular velocity of the earth, which is equal to hours. So at 30゜N the rotation has a 24-hour period.

Fig. 1 shows what the above equations mean.

- : An air parcel is at rest on the pressure field.
- : First, it starts to move toward low height perpendicular to height contours in response to the pressure gradient force, but as soon as motion develops, the Coriolis force also acts on it. So the parcel moves acceleratingly with both forces acting on it. The pressure gradient force remains unchanged, whereas the Coriolis force acts deflecting the parcel’s motion toward the right in proportion to its speed. So descending along contours of isobaric height, the parcel gradually accelerates parallel to contours of height.
- : Eventually the parcel’s motion becomes parallel to height contours and has the same direction as geostrophic wind’s. Converting potential energy into kinetic energy, the parcel moves downward along the slope of the pressure surface and its speed becomes twice as high as geostrophic wind’s. The Coriolis force also becomes twice as strong as the one needed for geostrophic balance and acts on the parcel the way it makes the parcel move upward perpendicular to contours of height, just as strongly as the force acting on the initial motionless air parcel, but reversely.
- : The parcel’s direction is gradually deflected to the right and the parcel decelerates upward across contours of isobaric height.
- : Getting to its original height, the parcel is again at rest for a moment. Then the parcel repeats the motions from ① to ⑤.Fig. 2 shows one period of ageostrophic motion and the forces acting on it. There contours of isobaric height are not drawn in straight lines but in curved lines.Fig. 2 shows one period of ageostrophic motion and the forces acting on it. There contours of isobaric height are not drawn in straight lines but in curved lines.

Fig. 3 shows ageostrophic wind, geostrophic wind and their differential vectors.

The motion illustrated with green arrows in Fig. 3 is characteristic of ageostrophic motion. When isobaric surfaces surround the Northern Hemisphere high in the south and low in the north, the motion follows the trajectory in Fig. 4.Now I would like to calculate how much kinetic energy an air parcel obtains when evolving from its motionless state to state where the speed reaches maximum. The force a unit volume of air parcel undergoes and the distance it covers constitute work. The energy of this work is converted into kinetic energy. Of the two forces the Coriolis force is perpendicular to the direction of the motion and does not contribute to the work. ( refer to Fig. 5 )Therefore, kinetic energy obtained by a unit volume of air parcel during this motion is provided only by the pressure gradient force. The pressure gradient force is always perpendicular to contours of height. So the total amount of the work during this motion is obtained by integrating from to ( in Fig.4 ) the inner product of the pressure gradient force and the line segment along the path of the air parcel.

The amount of work given is

where ρ is the density of air, h is the height of isobaric surface and n and s denote the unit vector directed to the steepest slope of isobaric surface and the unit vector directed to the path of the parcel, respectively.

This equation means that the energy produced during the parcel’s transferring from to is equal to the lost amount of potential energy. This amount of work becomes kinetic energy, which is

That means an air parcel in ageostrophic motion obtains kinetic energy by being compressed by the pressure gradient force, and this kinetic energy is equal to the potential energy which is lost while moving down the isobaric surface. In other words, an air parcel obtains the velocity by moving on isobaric surface and lowering its height.**＜2. Ageostrophic Wind in the Real Atmosphere＞**

The characteristic of the ageostrophic motion is explained to some extent in the former section but that explanation is based on the unreal assumption. Through observing the behavior of the real atmosphere I would like to examine how much near?ageostrophic winds are blowing. The materials I use are the followings.- Grid point data on the Internet which are based on the materials of numerical forecasting by Japan Meteorological Agency. ( http://ddb.kishou.go.jp/gpvftp.html )
- Global cloud image published on the Internet by WSI. Co., U.S.A. ( http://www.intellicast.com/LocalWeather/World/United States/World/ )

Fig. 6 illustrates the analyzed local wind velocity

**V**, the geostrophic wind**V**g, and the difference between**V**and Vg , that is,**V**－**V**g , on the 200－hPa isobaric surface on June 5, 2001.I got the zonal elements and the meridional elements of the analyzed wind velocity from the grid point information of Japan Meteorological Agency. And the zonal elements Ug and the meridional elements Vg of the geostrophic velocity can be obtained from the following equations.

where n,φ, a and θ denote horizontal distance, geopotential height of isobaric surface, the earth’s radius and latitude, respectively.

In Fig. 6 the magnitudes of the wind velocity and the differential vectors (red arrows) are shown in proportion to the length of arrows. The length of arrows drawn below the chart is equal to the velocity of 20m/s.

If you can find the geostrophic and quasi－geostrophic motions in the real atmosphere, the differential vectors should be very small, but in a lot of regions they are over 20m/s.

In Fig. 7, the differential vectors V－Vg are illustrated on the chart of the distribution of isobaric heights (Bottom). Figures ①②③ and ④ on the chart correspond to those in Fig.3 and you can see the real atmospheric behavior having a single vibration or rotation.

According to the modern meteorology, the atmosphere on the earth undergoes the geostrophic adjustment. Even if it is initially in the ageostrophic motion, it soon changes into the geostrophic motion because ageostrophic elements are carried away from the region by inertial waves and external gravity waves. If this theory is right, how can ageostrophic elements have such magnitudes as shown in Figs. 6 and 7?

When they estimate the geostrophic adjustment, they assume the rigid wall as the meridional boundary condition in calculating how long it takes ageostrophic elements to be carried away. But in the region between the westerly wind belt and the tropics, meridional elements distinctly cross the height contours, so their assumption is not adequate. There is a clear defect in their estimation of the geostrophic adjustment.

＜3. Regions of Deep Convection in the Tropics and the Subtropical High Pressure＞ In the illustrations on June 5, 2001 ( Figs. 6 and 7 ), you can find ageostrophic winds in the tropics and in the southern part of the westerly wind belt. And you can find them in the real atmosphere almost every day. What causes this ageostrophic motion?

**＜3.1 Ａn Infant Subtropical High＞**

The isobaric surfaces are generally flat near the tropics. Air lifted by convective motions there diverges at first into every direction. On account of the conservation of angular momentum, the westerlies ( air flowing out poleward ) or the easterlies ( air flowing out equatorward ) get stronger, so especially the meridional flow of air diverges and keeps diverging. The Coriolis force acts on the air which flows out poleward in proportion to its velocity, so the air is gradually deflected westward and then equatorward. As a result, almost occluded circle of air streams is formed and the air is gathered there. If the convective motion is maintained, height of the northeastern part of the convective regions is elevated and a high pressure appears there. This seems to be an infant subtropical high. ( refer to Fig. 8 )**＜3.2 The Subtropical High Pressure and the Subtropical Jet＞**

The deep convection is maintained in specific regions, such as in the areas around Indonesia from March to May. After a distinct subtropical high appears, convective motion is maintained. To put it in another way, regions of deep convection are established on the southwestern edge of the subtropical high.Air lifted by cumulus convection developed along the southern part of the subtropical high drives ageostrophic motion and the motion is restricted by the pressure gradient around the subtropical high. Consequently, the stream involving the subtropical jet appears, which is shown in Fig. 9. Horizontal scale of an infant subtropical jet is determined, as told in the theory of the ageostrophic wind, by the horizontal circulation whose period is 12／sinφ{hour}, where φ is latitude.

**＜3.3 Ageostrophic Wind Entering the Westerly Wind Belt＞**

Ageostrophic motion which starts in the tropics crosses height contours, goes into the westerly wind belt and exchanges momentum with the stream in the belt. So it forces ageostrophic motion upon the stream in the westerly wind belt.The stream in the westerly wind belt which starts ageostrophic motion becomes super－geostrophic wind, and then crosses height contours upward by Coriolis force that is over geostrophic balance. So the stream forms the convergence field in the tropics inside of jet axis, as illustrated in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10 illustrates the schematic of the stream, whereas Fig. 11 shows an example of the observation on June 5, 2001. Divergence D is obtained from the following equation.

where A is the earth’s radius, u and v denote zonal elements of the velocity and meridional elements of the velocity, respectively, and θ and λ refer to latitude and longitude.

Units of divergence ( red lines in Fig. 11 ) and convergence ( blue lines ) are both 10－５sec－１.

**＜4. The Hadley Circulation＞**Where air converges in the upper troposphere, the pressure is higher than that of the surrounding regions from the bottom to the top of the troposphere. Near the surface, the pressure is also higher than the surrounding areas, and if that region locates in the center of a high, the high pressure intensifies. If it is not in the center, the anticyclonic curvature sharpens.

Near the surface, the friction makes winds move across isobars toward low pressure. If the pressure near the center of a high increases, it is clear that divergence intensifies.

Even if the area under the upper convergence field doesn’t locate near the center of a high, the pressure there is higher than the neighboring regions, and the anticyclonic curvature of isobars sharpens. In the friction layer, when the velocity doesn’t change and the anticyclonic curvature sharpens, divergence intensifies.

curvature and convergence under a cyclonic curvature. When air converges in the upper troposphere, the pressure of the whole atmospheric column increases, so air diverges near the surface.

Near the surface the pressure gets higher than the surrounding regions and an anticyclonic curvature sharpens. Under an anticyclonic curvature the friction makes air flow toward low pressure and diverge. Convergence in the upper troposphere and divergence in the lower friction layer cause subsidence. And air from the subtropical high pressure partly returns to its original area. Figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the above facts.

In the present Hadley circulation model, most people believe that the high pressure is maintained by subsiding air in the descending branch of the circulation at high latitude. But the descending air current doesn’t have a direct relationship to the pressure, nor does it maintain the high pressure. The mechanism of maintaining the subtropical high pressure has not been made clear.

In my new circulation model, I can explain this mechanism clearly. That is, when the difference between the amount of convergence in the upper troposphere and that of divergence in the lower troposphere is positive, the subtropical high pressure intensifies, and when it is negative, the high pressure weakens.

**＜Conclusions＞**Until today it was believed that in the Hadley circulation, air lifted at low latitude moved toward high latitude and descended there. So the Hadley circulation was inconsistent with the subtropical jet.

But in the real atmosphere, as explained, ageostrophic component is too strong to ignore. Thinking that there is ageostrophic air current, I have found that air which moves toward high latitude, lowering the slope of isobaric surface, accelerates at first by the pressure gradient force and after becoming super－geostrophic wind called “the subtropical jet”, by using its energy, air runs up the mountain of the subtropical high. In the general circulation, it was said, air must descend after it diverged. But instead of descending, air compresses the whole mountain by running up the mountain. This mechanism can produce the circulation.

About the mechanism maintaining the height field of the subtropical high there was often a misunderstanding that the intensity of the meridional circulation, namely, the intensity of the ascending or descending air current was related with the power of the subtropical high. But I should estimate the ebb and flow of the subtropical high by estimating the convergence and divergence through the whole atmospheric column. About this mechanism of maintaining the subtropical high, I believe I could construct the satisfactory theory.

During the northern summer most of the air current which diverges in the upper troposphere at low latitude flows out into the Southern Hemisphere. In spite of that, the power of the subtropical jet in the Northern Hemisphere is still strong. This fact can be explained by estimating the difference between the amount of convergence in the upper troposphere and that of divergence in the lower troposphere. In the Southern Hemisphere most of the convergence region in the upper troposphere locates at low latitude where the Coriolis force is weak, so it is easy for air to diverge in the lower troposphere. This means the difference between the amount of convergence in the upper troposphere and that of divergence in the lower troposphere is small, so in spite of the strong influence of the circulation, you cannot find the distinct subtropical high. These are my conclusions.

**＜References＞**- Nitta, T. The General Circulation of the Atmosphere ( Tokyo－do Pub., Tokyo, 1980 )
- Kurihara, N. Introduction to Atmospheric Dynamics ( Iwanami, Tokyo, 1979 )
- Aihara, M. Basic Equations and Theory of Energy Meteorology Research Paper No. 134, 24 ~ 32 pp. ( 1978 )