viscount aero wrote: The structure created in the video experiments virtually mirrors that of the meteor's trail. It's uncanny and scalable as in plasma physics. It at least appears that way to me
I just saw a big blob of fire, similiar to the blob of fire left-over right after the meteor flare-up. Seems plausible, water being turned into oxygen and hydrogen and burning up. All I saw from the rail gun though was a blob of fire. If that is indeed confirmed to be caused by electrolysis of water vapor in the cannon, then the theory/explanation of "water turned to fuel" would be plausible.
Yes the train reveals a line of billowing fire, very robust and spectacular. I guess that is why they are called "fireballs."
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote:
justcurious wrote:
viscount aero wrote: The structure created in the video experiments virtually mirrors that of the meteor's trail. It's uncanny and scalable as in plasma physics. It at least appears that way to me
I just saw a big blob of fire, similiar to the blob of fire left-over right after the meteor flare-up. Seems plausible, water being turned into oxygen and hydrogen and burning up. All I saw from the rail gun though was a blob of fire. If that is indeed confirmed to be caused by electrolysis of water vapor in the cannon, then the theory/explanation of "water turned to fuel" would be plausible.
Yes the train reveals a line of billowing fire, very robust and spectacular. I guess that is why they are called "fireballs."
I like the rail-gun analogy, but the water hydrolysis explanation thing bothers me. What makes you believe that water hydrolysis is occurring as opposed to regular ionization of air through heat and electricity? So you believe that the blinding flare up or flash is caused by hydrogen burning up when the meteor went through a wet spot in the atmosphere? You seem to suggest that the latest video was a slam dunk - case closed.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
justcurious wrote:
viscount aero wrote: The structure created in the video experiments virtually mirrors that of the meteor's trail. It's uncanny and scalable as in plasma physics. It at least appears that way to me
I just saw a big blob of fire, similiar to the blob of fire left-over right after the meteor flare-up. Seems plausible, water being turned into oxygen and hydrogen and burning up. All I saw from the rail gun though was a blob of fire. If that is indeed confirmed to be caused by electrolysis of water vapor in the cannon, then the theory/explanation of "water turned to fuel" would be plausible.
Yes the train reveals a line of billowing fire, very robust and spectacular. I guess that is why they are called "fireballs."
I like the rail-gun analogy, but the water hydrolysis explanation thing bothers me. What makes you believe that water hydrolysis is occurring as opposed to regular ionization of air through heat and electricity? So you believe that the blinding flare up or flash is caused by hydrogen burning up when the meteor went through a wet spot in the atmosphere? You seem to suggest that the latest video was a slam dunk - case closed.
I think it's clear that both are occurring as a systemic chain of events. And do you mean hydrolysis or electrolysis?
The parallel structures of the vapor trails of the railgun and meteor in particular are highly compelling. How did these structures get that way? As you already know electrolysis is the breakdown of a substance by passing an electric current through it. The meteor is the triboelectric element and the de facto electric current. Its presence ionizes the air. The air on Earth has moisture as well. Moreover, to my understanding, ionization of water can happen due to electrolysis, ie, H2O → H+ + OH–. As we know hydrogen is highly flammable. At the layer of the atmosphere where moisture is concentrated the liberated hydrogen will explode like a bomb. The video clearly shows billowing fire in the air at a specific area of the meteor's trail. The billowing fire train is spectacular and amazing.
Is electric charge separation the main process for kinetic energy transformation into the meteor phenomenon?
Spurný, P.; Ceplecha, Z. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 489, Issue 1, 2008, pp.449-454 After 3 years of systematic monitoring of fireballs by autonomous fireball observatories (AFO), millisecond flares (spikes) were recognized for the frequent and regular behavior of meteor light curves recorded with high time resolution. Also, other peculiarities in meteor motion, radiation, and ionization point to some more powerful internal processes in meteoroid interaction with the atmosphere than hypersonic aerodynamics can offer. Fragmentation of meteoroids starts at much higher altitudes than at those corresponding to aerodynamic loading. The fragility of meteoroids cannot explain this behavior, beeing also observed with the strongest bolide types (I and II).
We propose triboelectricity as induced in meteoroids during their atmospheric penetration as the main process to adequately explain the meteor phenomenon, with hypersonic aerodynamics processes being only of secondary importance. Triboelectric charging may be the most important energy transfer inside a meteoroid causing internal charge differences inside different conductivity domains until discharge fragments the body. Such a process then may repeat over and over in the main body, as well as in individual fragments.
The triboelectric effect (also known as triboelectric charging) is a type of contact electrification in which certain materials become electrically charged after they come into contact with another different material through friction. Rubbing glass with fur, or a comb through the hair, can build up triboelectricity. Most everyday static electricity is triboelectric. The polarity and strength of the charges produced differ according to the materials, surface roughness, temperature, strain, and other properties.
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
dahlenaz wrote: i should clarify that i do not agree with all the observations made by the video author, as he assigns electrical dynamic (catch) phases to certain details. especially the dark ring which forms in the trail of the ignited atmosphere behind the projectile.
viscount aero wrote: But do you not agree with his premise of charge separation occurring as well as the ignition of atmospheric hydrogen adn oxygen? These are the main ideas I think, that and the structure of the remaining contrail/plume.
I can't say for sure about the application of electrical dynamics, as in charge separation. There may be geometric factors introduced by the rectangular shape of the projectile and barrel which extend out into the shape and behavior of the plume. I don't know how thermodynamics entwines with electrodynamics within a combustion process or how to differentiate. I just saw an oversight related to the dark ring and disproportional cooling which he assigns incorrectly an electrical cause and a parallel to the meteor trail. This is my unqualified suspicion.
Assuming that they didn't prime the barrel with something, i leaned toward agreement that the pinch of electromagnetic force might ignite the atmosphere but i am taking my clues from his dialogue, not from personal familiarity. d...z
...
D_Archer
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote: We propose triboelectricity as induced in meteoroids during their atmospheric penetration as the main process to adequately explain the meteor phenomenon, with hypersonic aerodynamics processes being only of secondary importance. Triboelectric charging may be the most important energy transfer inside a meteoroid causing internal charge differences inside different conductivity domains until discharge fragments the body. Such a process then may repeat over and over in the main body, as well as in individual fragments..
The meteor would encounter the air molecules at fast speed, the more atmosphere it crosses the more energy is build up, the energy does not dissipate but stores in an outer plasma cell (glow mode starts) the meteor itself would cool( below zero, all charge sucked out), such a large potential would seek discharge with the earth, the energy can not be contained as it continues to build up. Discharge 1, the bolide breaks up, there is still charge left on smaller pcs, smaller discharges ensue, more breakup. etc.
So it not friction with air is heating, but charge buildup with air is electric breakdown.
Regards, Daniel
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
These last few posts were really good. Thanks viscount, dahlenaz an archer.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
My pleasure Somewhere in there is the answer
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote:
Sparky wrote: The corkscrew trail is not necessarily an electrical signature. It could have been produced by two objects tumbling. I can not figure out why they seem to come closer together and merge.
I guess that's possible (tumbling), but tumbling or turning in a direction of a corkscrew? And two "pieces" tumbling in the same directions forming a helical shape, that seems like a bit too coincidental for my taste.
I agree. I also agree that water electrolysis isn't likely. 12~15 miles above the surface, there just isn't that much water up there. But molecular nitrogen and oxygen can be separated and recombined, with the same effect. It takes a bit more energy, but that's not a problem for a hypersonic bolide. So he had the right idea, but the wrong elements.
I also find the railgun metaphor to be strained. While gunpowder can expand at the speed of sound (for itself, which is higher than the speed of sound in the surrounding air), the theoretical limit for the expansion of positive ions is the speed of light. So if you discharge a bank of capacitors into a long tube, ionizing all of the air, the expansion can accelerate a projectile to a much higher speed. (What will DoD think up next?) Coming out of the barrel is then a Coulomb explosion, and what we're seeing is the oxidation of positive ions. But a projectile accelerated by a Coulomb explosion is one thing — a bolide leaving a trail of ions behind it is another. The difference is in the prime mover.
And triboelectricity is a crude analogy for what's actually going on here. With a detached shock front, the collisions are between air and... air! Air isn't on the triboelectric series, and even if it was, air rubbing up against itself isn't going to develop any static electricity. A more mechanistic explanation is that the boundary layer gets positively charged, due to incoming atoms getting their electrons stripped off in particle collisions. That really isn't triboelectric charging.
I did up some images, to help me think this through all of the way. So far so good.
Here are the expectations of fluid dynamics, which clearly are not met, since bolides do not decelerate the way they should.
Fluid Dynamic Regime
Next we have the explanation of detached bow shocks, including a charging mechanism. This gets us much closer to the real thing.
Detached Bow Shock Regime
But that doesn't explain twin smoke trails. So I'm saying that the bolide starts rolling across the density gradient.
Density Gradient Induces Rotation
The rolling turns the bolide into a dynamo, and that has interesting implications...
Rolling Bolide Regime
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
And triboelectricity is a crude analogy for what's actually going on here. With a detached shock front, the collisions are between air and... air! Air isn't on the triboelectric series, and even if it was, air rubbing up against itself isn't going to develop any static electricity. A more mechanistic explanation is that the boundary layer gets positively charged, due to incoming atoms getting their electrons stripped off in particle collisions. That really isn't triboelectric charging.
I did up some images, to help me think this through all of the way. So far so good.
Here are the expectations of fluid dynamics, which clearly are not met, since bolides do not decelerate the way they should.
Fluid Dynamic Regime
Next we have the explanation of detached bow shocks, including a charging mechanism. This gets us much closer to the real thing. Detached Bow Shock Regime
But that doesn't explain twin smoke trails. So I'm saying that the bolide starts rolling across the density gradient.
Density Gradient Induces Rotation
The rolling turns the bolide into a dynamo, and that has interesting implications...
Rolling Bolide Regime
Very good illustrations you have of your points. You ought to upload them as images. So, then, friction plays no role in meteor phenomenon? The meteor's very presence and velocity doesn't at all account for charge separation due to friction? The meteor isn't rubbing against anything?
Lloyd
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
VA said: So, then, friction plays no role in meteor phenomenon? The meteor's very presence and velocity doesn't at all account for charge separation due to friction? The meteor isn't rubbing against anything?
Friction is mentioned at Bolide_~ as being responsible for a rolling motion and resulting magnetic field. I believe friction is also said to be responsible for stripping electrons from the meteor, building up the bow shock and loosening the chemical bonds within the meteor.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Lloyd wrote:
VA said: So, then, friction plays no role in meteor phenomenon? The meteor's very presence and velocity doesn't at all account for charge separation due to friction? The meteor isn't rubbing against anything?
Friction is mentioned at Bolide_~ as being responsible for a rolling motion and resulting magnetic field. I believe friction is also said to be responsible for stripping electrons from the meteor, building up the bow shock and loosening the chemical bonds within the meteor.
Ok then what Charles is doing is further describing more of what is going on versus excluding charge separation due to friction, ie, triboelectric charging (and thus heat). Friction denotes heat. In simplistic terms ionization in this case is due to friction. Am I in the ballpark at least?
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
I guess that's possible (tumbling), but tumbling or turning in a direction of a corkscrew? And two "pieces" tumbling in the same directions forming a helical shape, that seems like a bit too coincidental for my taste.
It is troublesome. I have been thinking that, if there were two or more bolides tumbling that the only thing that would confine them would be electrical/magnetic forces. And those would also somewhat confine the fragments after the large flash, which I am assuming to be a major breakup.
But, I like Charles' rolling bolide with separated, twin trails. That would seem to explain the coming together of the trails prior to the large flash.
I also like the N O combining at higher altitudes...
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Yes I think the meteor was tumbling. It would seem, too, that the fragments would conserve this motion. Things move and rotate as they're traveling through space, but when impinging upon matter particularly. Charles describes it well. As we all know tumbling is why tsunamis occur: the friction on the bottom of the wave is dragging along the sea floor as it moves closer to shore, slowing it, whilst the top of the wave wants to remain at its original velocity. This is exactly what Charles illustrates in his good diagram.
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote: OK then what Charles is doing is further describing more of what is going on versus excluding charge separation due to friction, i.e., triboelectric charging (and thus heat). Friction denotes heat. In simplistic terms ionization in this case is due to friction. Am I in the ballpark at least?
Yes, especially the bolded statement. I just wouldn't call it triboelectricity, which is electron transfer due to differences in binding energies of different molecules, whereas we're talking about electrons getting stripping by high-energy collisions. Is there a special name for that? Anyway, the significance is not just that the particle collisions generate heat that converts the molecules to plasma, as if it was still quasi-neutral. The atomic nuclei, with their greater inertial forces, burrow deeper into the boundary layer. So the plasma is not quasi-neutral — there is an organized charge separation, with positive ions forming a sheath around the bolide, and with a layer of electrons around the outside of that sheath. And these charged double-layers give the bolide a whole new set of properties.
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote:
Sparky wrote: The corkscrew trail is not necessarily an electrical signature. It could have been produced by two objects tumbling. I can not figure out why they seem to come closer together and merge.
I guess that's possible (tumbling), but tumbling or turning in a direction of a corkscrew? And two "pieces" tumbling in the same directions forming a helical shape, that seems like a bit too coincidental for my taste.
I agree. I also agree that water electrolysis isn't likely. 12~15 miles above the surface, there just isn't that much water up there. But molecular nitrogen and oxygen can be separated and recombined, with the same effect. It takes a bit more energy, but that's not a problem for a hypersonic bolide. So he had the right idea, but the wrong elements.
The meteor's trail, just prior to the point of the flash event, seems to indicate a very slow rolling motion after a change of course of about 15 degrees. This change seems real important to what follows, the fragmentation into multiple pieces. The flash point does not seem to be as high as stated above,,, clouds don't form at 12-15 miles up and the time between the flash and the first concussion seems to support a low level fragmentation maybe you ment 12-15,000 feet.
Even if the height is above 5 miles couldn't the object be more than a solid clump of metal and rock?
We do not know how it came to be and we don't know what was occurring during its wanderings, so we may need to consider that it could have been carrying volitile material that was exposed upon fragmentation or even influential in structural failure. But with that said,,,, to dismiss interaction with our atmosphere seems to rest on how high it was prior to fragmentation. Upon fragmentation the dynamics change violently but the twin trails seem to indicate that forward momentum was not altered greatly by the blast. And as suggested earlier, spinning or tumbling should be expected along with an interaction of internal contents with external conditions. The cloud which is spread along the fragmentation region takes on a life of its own, which may misrepresent the behavior of the fragments. A lot was happening in those few seconds of fragmentation and continued well after the fragments departed. This raises the requirements for the explanation of this event beyond that of a solid body at extreme altitude. d...z
Somewhere in there is the answer
