the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Oct 2025
First decade of atmospheric electricity observations at Świder Observatory
Abstract. Since October 1929 measurements of the atmospheric potential gradient (PG) have entered routine operation at the Magnetic Observatory in Świder, Poland. This started a new chapter in the history of the Observatory. Two Benndorf electrometers recorded continuously until September 1939. The war disrupted these observations as well as shattered efforts to publish the results of nearly a decade. Nevertheless, these early actions initiated by the Observatory management shaped its future as it became a contemporary atmospheric electricity station in the second half of the 20th century.
- Preprint
(445 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
EC1: 'Comment on hgss-2025-9', Kristian Schlegel, 02 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Anna Odzimek, 05 Dec 2025
Thank you very much for indicating what this manuscript has lacked yet. Here are our replies to the points made.
1. Yes, Kalinowska-Widomska in her 1955 work analysed data from 1950-1951 (plus several months from 1952) and included results from year 1930 (average diurnal, seasonal and annual values of the electric potential gradient). Attached is other plot of the average diurnal variation 1930 (bars) and the variation in each season together with the diurnal variations based on data from 1950-1951. We can recognise the characteristic shapes of Świder PG diurnal variations – the year average and seasonal (Kalinowski 1932, Kalinowska-Widomska, 1955 and others) with differences in the mean average amplitudes. We do not know the standard deviations for these curves. The measurements error Kalinowska-Widomska estimates at 10 V/m, or 12%. The average hourly values from 1930 are consistently higher (except Autumn). This is probably due to the effect of nuclear testing PG in 1950-1951, since there were no particular differences between the measurement site, technique and instruments. The low values in Autumn 1930 diurnal variation may indeed be due to problems with insufficient insulation as Kalinowska-Widomska concludes. The annual variation could also be added.
2. A diagram of the measurements installation will be prepared. Other copy of Kalinowski publication will be used to obtain slightly better versions of Figs. 1 and 2. More description in the two captions will be added, also referring to the diagram.
3. Yes, title of Section 4 should be changed, and "The modern Świder Observatory" seems appropriate, or "The modern atmospheric electric observatory (1948-present)". The unclear statements will be revised. The two old instruments are no longer in use.
4. Some errors were missed upon compilation, and will be corrected. The errors concern missing citations: Harrison and Riddick, 2022 (Line 131), Olszaniec, 2024 (Line 206), Hurwic, 1956 (Line 218), Kalinowska, 1962 (Line 304). Moreover, the publication year of Kalinowska collection was incorrectly given as 1960 throughout the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Anna Odzimek, 05 Dec 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on hgss-2025-9', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Oct 2025
Thank you for this valuable paper with important material concerning early twentieth century atmospheric electricity measurements in Poland, and the associated motivation, problems and successes. The biographies of significant individuals are a bonus and humbling to read.
This work would seem to fit perfectly in the Special Issue on Atmospheric electrical observatories.
I have only a few points:
- The title is possibly confusing as it could refer to recent measurements. I suggest that “The first decade (1929-1939) of atmospheric electricity observations at Swider Observatory” would be clearer.
- Related, in the Abstract, first sentence: “In October 1929, measurements of the atmospheric potential gradient (PG) began to be routinely recorded at the Magnetic Observatory in Swider, Poland.”
- Bringing atmospheric electricity measurements into magnetic observatories was also encouraged by Elster and Geitel, who wrote to the Carnegie Institution to suggest it. (See Fricke and Schlegel https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/8/1/2017/ , section 2). Given the importance of the Carnegie Institution, this would be worth including.
- Say potential gradient (PG) on first use, probably line 62, and then use the abbreviation PG throughout.
- Some question marks occur in the text. These need to be resolved.
Small points on the text:
L1 “The history of…
L15 paragraph break needed after Kalinowski. Then “Professor Kalinowski...
L19 “Specifically, Kalinowski had visited Pavlovsk, and, with the architect he employed, Łukasz Wolski, they visited Potsdam and Seddin several times (Linthe, 2023a, b).”
L21 “The beginning of continuous operation was delayed by the war, which trapped Kalinowski on the other side of the front. The Observatory was not…”
L29 “…after a brief but necessary…”
L33. Do you mean that the magnetic work has been prioritised in what has been written about the Observatory, or that the magnetic work itself was prioritised?
L44 full --> fuller
L55 Make clear that it would be the magnetic work which would be threatened by the electric railway (as documented for Seddin https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/14/43/2023/ and Kew https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/15/5/2024/ ).
L58 run --> ran
L69 what --> which
L70 “Prior to receiving the grant, construction of another observing house was arranged…”
L74 Wulf (if of the electrometer)
L90 “The Observatory was renamed but the years that followed…”
L93 field measurements of what kind? Magnetic?
L98 “Antoni Liliental’s at the observatory
Footnote 8: “It was discovered that the magnetic Z component had been reported with an opposite sign, and all results for the affected period needed to be corrected.”
L132 Harrison and Riddick 2023, fig 4.
L152 touting --> tensioning
L164 distortion
L178 confirmed
L218 Kalinowski’s activity… this sentence and question mark doesn’t make sense.
L222 encouraged
L264 “…the Observatory, Zofia Kalinowska gave support for atmospheric electricity observations continuation at…”
L277 “…-Curie, Henryk obtained…”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-9-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Odzimek, 05 Dec 2025
Thank you very much for the very useful remarks, and polishing the language of this manuscript. It is very much appreciated.
Ad 1. The suggested title is clearer, thank you.
Ad 2. Thank you for the suggestion.
Ad 3. This is an interesting fact which will get a reference.
Ad 4 and other points. Thank you for the corrections, the text will be revised. Some question remarks remained in the submitted manuscript, and they should be citations of Harrison and Riddick (2022), Olszaniec (2024), Hurwic (1956) and Kalinowska (1962).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-9-AC2
-
RC2: 'Comment on hgss-2025-9', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2025
This paper describes an early days of the atmospheric electricity observation at Swider observatory in Poland, and especially hard circumstances and great efforts of observatory staff are shown. I think it is worth to record this history and include the HGSS collection.
I have a few suggestions and questions as follows.
- If available, it would be more valuable to refer even short documents clearly and include photos of the observation such as recoding papers, radioactive collectors and observatory staff. Readers across the globe would be difficult to access many of documents and references mentioned in this paper.
- There are several parts that I am not sure when it happened. To avoid these, a year description should be added. See Technical Comments below for details.
- As the Editor already pointed out, Section ‘Conclusion’ should be renamed, because it describes a story of the Swider and Belsk observatory in the latter half of the 20th century. But, it is ambiguous how and which observations were conducted at the two observatories.
Technical Comments:
- Line 22: When was the site ready? I guess in 1920?
- Line 39: A position of a parenthesis is probably wrong. It would be ‘(Chodkowska, 2011)’.
- Line 80: Same as Comment 6. It would be ‘(Kalinowski, 1932)’.
- Line 122: Same as Comment 6. It would be ‘(Kalinowski, 1946)’.
- Line 131: ‘?’ is inserted.
- Line 185: What does ‘PAS’ stand for? Probably, Polish Academy of Sciences?
- Line 128: Same as Comment 8. ‘?’ is inserted.
- Line 304: Same as Comment 8. ‘?’ is inserted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-9-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Odzimek, 05 Dec 2025
Thank you very much for suggestions on how to improve this manuscript, and pointing out the unclear statements and errors.
There are not many photos of the staff and observatory from pre-war era, except from Kalinowski document photos and the two photos of the atmospheric electricity site that were published – but the archive will be double-checked. In any case, Kalinowski portrait photo could be included. Hopefully, it will give better visual effect and arrangement of this manuscript together with the diagram of the measurement set-up. An option is to add the schetch of the Benndorf electrometer from the work of Benndorf 1906. Good photos of the instrument still in a very good condition are published in other papers, and will be linked.
Sometimes it is difficult to say when something exactly happened. The site is supposed to be ready no later than 1920, and the same year instruments were evacuated. Where possible, the dates will be added.
The title of last section will be changed, but the aim was to separate the history of the modern observatory of either Świder or Belsk. Types of measurements will be clarified with new references to be added.
Yes, PAS is Polish Academy of Sciences. Sincere apologises for the questions marks that remained in the manuscript which should not happen. They appeared instead of citations of Harrison and Riddick (2022), Olszaniec (2024), Hurwic (1956) and Kalinowska (1962), in lines 131, 206, 218, and 304, respectively . There are several citations with wrong position of the parenthesis which need correction - thank you.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2025-9-AC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 194 | 79 | 27 | 300 | 15 | 29 |
- HTML: 194
- PDF: 79
- XML: 27
- Total: 300
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript describes the establishment of atmospheric electricity measurements at the observatory Swider in great detail. Although the corresponding data are lost, these details are worth to be preserved, and I tend to accept the manuscript for publication in HGSS.
However I suggest some additions.
1. Since the data had been destroyed in WWII. even some early results should be included, if possible. Perhaps some early and preliminary results are contained in later publications (Kalinowski, 1937b, 1939, or Kalinowska 1960, or Kalinowska-Widomska 1955).
2. It would be convenient for the reader, if a block diagram of the measurement installation, described in lines 133 to 150 can be sketched and included. Fig. 2 needs some explanations.
3. Section 4 is not really a "conclusion". It should be renamed as something like "The modern Swider Observatory". It should be mentioned that it is now called "Stanislaw Kalinowski Geophysical Observatory" and it should be clearly stated if the observatory still continues to observe atmospheric electricity parameters. In line 191 it it said that two instruments are still exist, but it is not clear, if they are still in use.
4. There are "?" in serveral places (lines 131, 206, 218, 304) which should be replaced.