awOLEMAN I think that first problerz can be handled witheut t 2B I don't see why you can't de it the way we have done i in the past—by meteorological winds. the latter problea—that iste find out how much fs reslly up there after a long peridl of © tine and the rate at which it is being ecavenged--it supzs te me ig the real problen, FELLOGGe | Of course your wind analysis doesn't tell you anything bhout the density; it merely says that a part of the cloud is here, if it was all there would now be here, and what didn't fall out or diffose would all be over here. trajectory analysia to dencnstrate that. Hobody objdcts te That we don't fine is how it moves in the vertical when it is following tha trajectory, and it was sucgested that we do have a very eouplste cut of the surface now, to show the density in along t= diznensions at the surface, Fe really don't know what parh is | followed by the debris in getting to the surface. Wecahenly work backwards, using © columation ef trajectories end buessing —about diffusion. It's generally a rather poorly contr experinents we can only use our winds plus an observations of oue plane, in this case the surface. I would like to ebeervations in }-dinsnsioss.This observation in another layer of the ateosphare seex indeed a difficult one when you consider you are using balloon: tHens ~= and having the difficulty of having thes where we want my 4 COONS s 0%