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.
Ok I understand. I used the triboelectric reference to get myself (and fellow members on this topic) seated in a common or simplistic frame of reference to then understand the more complex events. NASA themselves uses that reference to describe meteor entry and charge separation.
Suffice it to say, crudely so, the concept is that of static electricity buildup when you rub things together. I know the meteor and its charge potential isn't static. In this case the meteor impinges upon the atmosphere creating the same result: charge separation due to friction. That was my only point by referencing triboelectricity. I think that the result is the same. We get an ionized condition and we get heat generated through the process.
I think some on here, however, do not fully believe or buy into the air itself (namely the airborne moisture) separating into free Hydrogen that is then combusted via electrolysis. I think electrolysis is more debatable a point And again, great diagrams. You make things very clear and accessible.
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.
To my earlier post and statement about cloud formation altitude, i was not thinking about higher formations such as noctilucent clouds, or Very high cirriform , but their formation does indicate the presence of moisture at extreme altitudes... If the metor cloud was as high as proposed then there must have been extra moisture provided by the meteor itself upon breakup,, where else would it come from?
How did they determine the altitude of the flash? The concussion delay of about 15 seconds seems to hint at a lower event altitude, or am i wrong in using the speed of sound for the calculation? d...z
...
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
dahlenaz wrote: ...How did they determine the altitude of the flash? The concussion delay of about 15 seconds seems to hint at a lower event altitude, or am i wrong in using the speed of sound for the calculation? d...z ...
What travels faster: concussion of the explosion or the sound?
"I assume that by "concussion of the explosion" you are talking about a shock wave. A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave. Sound is an ordinary wave.
Ordinary shock waves are compressive, that is, they fulfill the Peter Lax conditions: the characteristic speed behind the shock is greater than the speed of the shock, which is greater than the characteristic speed in front of the shock. The characteristic speed is the speed of traveling little perturbations. The Lax conditions seem to be necessary for a shock wave to come to existence; if the top of a wave goes faster than its bottom, than the wave front becomes sharper and sharper and eventually becomes a shock wave (a "discontinuous" wave, a sharp wave front which remains sharp when it travels).
Explanations of shock waves can get extremely hairy and some explanations require a LOT of Calculus."
and
"Depends on the altitude however the concussion can most definitely travel faster than sound. Consider sound travels about 770 MPH and explosions can travel thousands of feet per second. Even at 1000 ft per second which can even be achieved by a high end pellet rifle you can see that the speed of sound is lacking."
D_Archer
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
My idea about the shock is that it happens at lightspeed, it is an explosion of light and ions. The effect of damage is because the air molecules are dragged along/pushed by the explosion, and air push can shatter windows.
Regards, Daniel
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote:
dahlenaz wrote: ...How did they determine the altitude of the flash? The concussion delay of about 15 seconds seems to hint at a lower event altitude, or am i wrong in using the speed of sound for the calculation? d...z ...
What travels faster: concussion of the explosion or the sound?
"I assume that by "concussion of the explosion" you are talking about a shock wave. A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave. Sound is an ordinary wave.
I was really thinking more about explosive concussions associated with the flash of light rather than shock wave, sonic boom, related to the objects movement.
But a question comes to mind about reports all along the flight path of any sonic boom that traveled along the line of flight; Where there reports and should we expect them? d...z
...
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
dahlenaz wrote: I was really thinking more about explosive concussions associated with the flash of light rather than shock wave, sonic boom, related to the objects movement.
But a question comes to mind about reports all along the flight path of any sonic boom that traveled along the line of flight; Where there reports and should we expect them? d...z
...
Isn't it all interrelated? The meteor's velocity and path created all of the associated devastation, not the light. Or are you referring to audible phenomena akin to thunder and lightning? This actually invites more pondering of things: In the case of lightning it is super-heated, I believe much hotter than any meteor, but most often does not send shock waves across the air to destroy buildings. But the meteor did. This is why I think the meteor event was more like a bomb blast as it had a longer duration to interact with the air (possibly stripping water molecules to liberate hydrogen) whereas lightning is often only appearing in fractions of seconds at a time.
The meteor's train also featured billowing fire akin to what is seen in explosions whereas, to my knowledge, lightning doesn't have this trait. In other words, there was an explosion like a bomb as the meteor shot across the sky.
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote:
dahlenaz wrote: I was really thinking more about explosive concussions associated with the flash of light rather than shock wave, sonic boom, related to the objects movement.
But a question comes to mind about reports all along the flight path of any sonic boom that traveled along the line of flight; Where there reports and should we expect them? d...z
...
Isn't it all interrelated? The meteor's velocity and path created all of the associated devastation, not the light. Or are you referring to audible phenomena akin to thunder and lightning? This actually invites more pondering of things: In the case of lightning it is super-heated, I believe much hotter than any meteor, but most often does not send shock waves across the air to destroy buildings. But the meteor did. This is why I think the meteor event was more like a bomb blast as it had a longer duration to interact with the air (possibly stripping water molecules to liberate hydrogen) whereas lightning is often only appearing in fractions of seconds at a time.
The meteor's train also featured billowing fire akin to what is seen in explosions whereas, to my knowledge, lightning doesn't have this trait. In other words, there was an explosion like a bomb as the meteor shot across the sky.
For the sake of simplicity i highlighted the quoted area above in your reply which hits at the core of my question and thoughts about using the flashes of light and the concussions heard in the video to refine details of the event, such as you mention above as well as altitude and whatever more can be infered. The force of the blash seems to cry out for an explanation other than a sonic boom. So does its appearance as seen from afar.
Thanks for hanging on with the abstract questions, everyone. d...z
...
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote: copied in part below, The rolling turns the bolide into a dynamo, and that has interesting implications...
>Rolling Bolide Regime
With reference to Charles' suggestion, offered earlier and drawn in two dimensional form, i have two question;
Will this action hold to the twin parallel output from a sphere or would it be more toroidal as a 3D representation of the same image would offer? d...z
...
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
dahlenaz wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
dahlenaz wrote: I was really thinking more about explosive concussions associated with the flash of light rather than shock wave, sonic boom, related to the objects movement.
But a question comes to mind about reports all along the flight path of any sonic boom that traveled along the line of flight; Where there reports and should we expect them? d...z
...
Isn't it all interrelated? The meteor's velocity and path created all of the associated devastation, not the light. Or are you referring to audible phenomena akin to thunder and lightning? This actually invites more pondering of things: In the case of lightning it is super-heated, I believe much hotter than any meteor, but most often does not send shock waves across the air to destroy buildings. But the meteor did. This is why I think the meteor event was more like a bomb blast as it had a longer duration to interact with the air (possibly stripping water molecules to liberate hydrogen) whereas lightning is often only appearing in fractions of seconds at a time.
The meteor's train also featured billowing fire akin to what is seen in explosions whereas, to my knowledge, lightning doesn't have this trait. In other words, there was an explosion like a bomb as the meteor shot across the sky.
For the sake of simplicity i highlighted the quoted area above in your reply which hits at the core of my question and thoughts about using the flashes of light and the concussions heard in the video to refine details of the event, such as you mention above as well as altitude and whatever more can be infered. The force of the blash seems to cry out for an explanation other than a sonic boom. So does its appearance as seen from afar.
Thanks for hanging on with the abstract questions, everyone. d...z
...
This is an engaging thread and I'm happy to hang in there with everyone's unique way they express themselves, their ideas and questions. We are getting to the heart of the issues here, namely, why did this act like a bomb? I think that isn't being discussed very far in the general public. I think there is much more going on here than mere "sound barriers" and ionization. I think those are part of the issue but are not central to the issue.
Only breaking Mach 1 isn't what caused the shock wave. This was a tremendous explosion. And the object was actually quite large. It was not a grain of sand in size when it entered and fragmented. It was metres across and very massive.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Something else just occurred to me: When the Space Shuttle would re-enter the Earth's atmosphere it would take several minutes and heat up to thousands of degrees. The Shuttle is also very massive and metres across in all directions. Even though it would create a sonic boom, the Shuttle's re-entry dynamics never had the effect upon the air as if a bomb exploded.
So what is different about the Russian meteor and its journey of entry? I think whatever happened during the meteor's entry was not just simply that of an object entering the atmosphere and breaking the sound barrier. What created the devastating shock wave and fiery explosion?
Lloyd
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
VA quoted someone: What travels faster: concussion of the explosion or the sound? "I assume that by "concussion of the explosion" you are talking about a shock wave. A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave. Sound is an ordinary wave.
After Charles explained impact craters on another thread as thermonuclear explosions, he then explained shockwaves as an electrical effect. See both here.
Impact Craters http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ LK: Other TPODs propose that most impact craters are formed from similar megalightning, rather than from bolide impacts. Do you think the craters are likely formed by lightning or bolide impacts? CC: I think that all of the perfectly circular craters are formed by thermonuclear explosions. The instantaneous temperatures and pressures in the impact of a rock even only a couple of meters across, but traveling at 70 km/s, will be sufficient for nuclear fusion. The craters are circular, instead of oblong, because they were caused by the relativistic ejecta from the fusion event, not the trajectory of the impacter. And there is nothing to be found of the meteor because it was all reduced to plasma by the explosion.
Shockwaves http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ This concerns something that I have never fully understood about shock waves in front of supersonic objects. Why do they get detached from the objects themselves, and stand off by quite a distance? I mean how, mechanistically speaking, does this happen? Air molecules impacting the surface of the supersonic object shouldn't be able to bounce that far back through the onslaught of more air molecules. So by Newtonian standards, the shock front should never become "detached" from the object, and molecular rebounds should be fully absorbed in the first dozen collisions, producing an extremely thin buffer between the object and the oncoming air. ... - Then I remembered something that I read about the heliopause. The interstellar wind creates a charge separation at the heliopause. This is because at the termination shock between the solar wind and the interstellar wind, atomic nuclei penetrate deeper into the opposing wind than free electrons, because the electrons are so much lighter, so they get stripped off. (May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879) Well, what if this is also an explanation for detached shock waves in front of supersonic objects? In other words, maybe the shock front isn't a fluid dynamic phenomenon, but an electrostatic one. High-velocity atoms in the approaching air are getting embedded in the boundary layer, stripped of their electrons, and therefore building up a positive double-layer around the supersonic object. The greater the speed, the thicker this positive double-layer, with electrostatic pressure pushing against the hydrostatic pressure of the oncoming air. - For impacters getting into the thicker atmosphere, the implication is that this "detached positive double-layer shock front" might be highly charged, and therefore, might be responsible for an enormous amount of electrostatic repulsion within the supersonic object. In other words, if the meteor is surrounded by a layer of highly charged air, the air is going to suck all of the electrons out of the meteor. Then the whole thing will come unglued. The absence of valence electrons will weaken the crystal lattice of the solid object, and electrostatic repulsion will generate an outward force that wasn't there before. Once the meteor disintegrates into smaller pieces, the friction goes up exponentially, as that is a function of surface area, which is much greater for a bunch of small pieces than it was for one big piece. The increase in temperature adds hydrostatic pressure to the existing electrostatic pressure, and ba-boom! Meteor vs Shuttle
VA said: The Shuttle is also very massive and metres across in all directions. Even though it would create a sonic boom, the Shuttle's re-entry dynamics never had the effect upon the air as if a bomb exploded. So what is different about the Russian meteor and its journey of entry? I think whatever happened during the meteor's entry was not just simply that of an object entering the atmosphere and breaking the sound barrier. What created the devastating shock wave and fiery explosion?
Shuttle speeds were much lower than most meteor speeds, weren't they? Charles says the high speeds of meteors get atomic nuclei in air to penetrate inside the meteor making it positive charged, while the electrons tend to get sucked out of the meteor. The high heat makes electrons unable to stick to ions, just as on the Sun. So the repulsive forces between positive ions in the meteor tend to break chemical bonds and can build up enough pressure to explode. I suppose meteors may be constantly exploding smaller areas of the surface. The insulating tiles on space shuttles didn't do any such exploding, except maybe very tiny explosions.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Lloyd wrote:
VA quoted someone: What travels faster: concussion of the explosion or the sound? "I assume that by "concussion of the explosion" you are talking about a shock wave. A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave. Sound is an ordinary wave.
After Charles explained impact craters on another thread as thermonuclear explosions, he then explained shockwaves as an electrical effect. See both here.
Impact Craters http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ LK: Other TPODs propose that most impact craters are formed from similar megalightning, rather than from bolide impacts. Do you think the craters are likely formed by lightning or bolide impacts? CC: I think that all of the perfectly circular craters are formed by thermonuclear explosions. The instantaneous temperatures and pressures in the impact of a rock even only a couple of meters across, but traveling at 70 km/s, will be sufficient for nuclear fusion. The craters are circular, instead of oblong, because they were caused by the relativistic ejecta from the fusion event, not the trajectory of the impacter. And there is nothing to be found of the meteor because it was all reduced to plasma by the explosion.
Shockwaves http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ This concerns something that I have never fully understood about shock waves in front of supersonic objects. Why do they get detached from the objects themselves, and stand off by quite a distance? I mean how, mechanistically speaking, does this happen? Air molecules impacting the surface of the supersonic object shouldn't be able to bounce that far back through the onslaught of more air molecules. So by Newtonian standards, the shock front should never become "detached" from the object, and molecular rebounds should be fully absorbed in the first dozen collisions, producing an extremely thin buffer between the object and the oncoming air. ... - Then I remembered something that I read about the heliopause. The interstellar wind creates a charge separation at the heliopause. This is because at the termination shock between the solar wind and the interstellar wind, atomic nuclei penetrate deeper into the opposing wind than free electrons, because the electrons are so much lighter, so they get stripped off. (May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879) Well, what if this is also an explanation for detached shock waves in front of supersonic objects? In other words, maybe the shock front isn't a fluid dynamic phenomenon, but an electrostatic one. High-velocity atoms in the approaching air are getting embedded in the boundary layer, stripped of their electrons, and therefore building up a positive double-layer around the supersonic object. The greater the speed, the thicker this positive double-layer, with electrostatic pressure pushing against the hydrostatic pressure of the oncoming air. - For impacters getting into the thicker atmosphere, the implication is that this "detached positive double-layer shock front" might be highly charged, and therefore, might be responsible for an enormous amount of electrostatic repulsion within the supersonic object. In other words, if the meteor is surrounded by a layer of highly charged air, the air is going to suck all of the electrons out of the meteor. Then the whole thing will come unglued. The absence of valence electrons will weaken the crystal lattice of the solid object, and electrostatic repulsion will generate an outward force that wasn't there before. Once the meteor disintegrates into smaller pieces, the friction goes up exponentially, as that is a function of surface area, which is much greater for a bunch of small pieces than it was for one big piece. The increase in temperature adds hydrostatic pressure to the existing electrostatic pressure, and ba-boom! Meteor vs Shuttle
VA said: The Shuttle is also very massive and metres across in all directions. Even though it would create a sonic boom, the Shuttle's re-entry dynamics never had the effect upon the air as if a bomb exploded. So what is different about the Russian meteor and its journey of entry? I think whatever happened during the meteor's entry was not just simply that of an object entering the atmosphere and breaking the sound barrier. What created the devastating shock wave and fiery explosion?
Shuttle speeds were much lower than most meteor speeds, weren't they? Charles says the high speeds of meteors get atomic nuclei in air to penetrate inside the meteor making it positive charged, while the electrons tend to get sucked out of the meteor. The high heat makes electrons unable to stick to ions, just as on the Sun. So the repulsive forces between positive ions in the meteor tend to break chemical bonds and can build up enough pressure to explode. I suppose meteors may be constantly exploding smaller areas of the surface. The insulating tiles on space shuttles didn't do any such exploding, except maybe very tiny explosions.
Thank you, Lloyd, that whole thing was excellent and clearly explained. Very good stuff. I believe Charles is the man here
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
dahlenaz wrote: 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 meant 12-15,000 feet.
No, I meant 12~15 miles. The latest estimate of the altitude of the bolide when it broke up was 27 km, based on the locations of observers, and the apparent angle of the bolide from the horizon for each observer. This is consistent with other measurements. The meteorite fragments were found about 40 km from Chelyabinsk. The hypotenuse of that 27/40 triangle is 48.25 km, giving the line-of-sight distance. With the speed of sound at the relevant altitudes being roughly 300 m/s, the sonic boom would have arrived 2.68 minutes after the point of nearest approach. I read somewhere that it was 2 minutes 50 seconds, which is 2.83 minutes. So I think that the estimates are reasonably accurate. Now, 27 km above the surface is well into the stratosphere, where there is little-to-no water vapor. So I'm still of the opinion that the "clouds" were made of smoke from arc discharges onto the surface of the bolide.
dahlenaz wrote: Upon fragmentation the dynamics change violently but the twin trails seem to indicate that forward momentum was not altered greatly by the blast. [...] 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.
...
Indeed, that's why I'm not really thinking that the bolide "exploded" per se — rather, it could have simply broken up. The flares were from charge recombination and molecular reformation, entirely within the nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere. The charge separation caused by a bolide can persist for tens of minutes in the atmosphere, so a flare that persisted for a second or two is not surprising. And clearly, the flare wasn't moving. So this was the stationary air recombining.
viscount aero wrote: NASA themselves uses that reference to describe meteor entry and charge separation.
I know. Meteorologists say that thunderstorm electrification is triboelectricity, from hail falling through the air! But that just ain't right... Anyway, I agree with your main point that friction causes ionization.
dahlenaz wrote: If the meteor cloud was as high as proposed then there must have been extra moisture provided by the meteor itself upon breakup, where else would it come from?
The meteorite fragments have been classified as chondrites, which typically contain silicon, aluminum, iron, nickel, etc. But maybe the meteoroids are actually just dirty snowballs, and the chondrite material is the dirt, and where nothing is left of the snowball except (in some cases) a cloud. I dunno... Spectral analysis on the cloud would have told the whole story, if anybody had bothered doing it, instead of running around fixing broken windows in the middle of the winter.
dahlenaz wrote: With reference to Charles' suggestion, offered earlier and drawn in two dimensional form, i have two question;
Will this action hold to the twin parallel output from a sphere or would it be more toroidal as a 3D representation of the same image would offer?
I'm still trying to figure out how to draw it in 3D without getting even more confused — it's actually a complex environment, if I have it figured correctly. My 2D drawing only shows one of the magnetic lines of force — the one facing in the direction of travel, which I'm saying will redirect electrons into the bolide, and burn holes into the axes, producing smoke. Yet the solenoidal field would be fully toroidal, and I'm not showing the other lines of force. I "think" that these will be less effective in redirecting electrons into the bolide. In the case of the leading line of force, the particles shedding off of the shock front begin traveling in the same direction as the magnetic line of force. Once organized into a Birkeland current, I'm saying that the electrons will then follow the lines of force into the bolide, pretty much the same way charged particles from the Sun follow the Earth's lines of force into the aurora. But what about particles that wrap around the sides? I don't think that those particles are redirected toward the poles as much, because their direction is too different from the magnetic lines of force. Is that true? Anyway, whatever is true of the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetosphere will be true of the air impacting the magnetic field of the bolide.
viscount aero wrote: When the Space Shuttle would re-enter the Earth's atmosphere it would take several minutes and heat up to thousands of degrees. The Shuttle is also very massive and metres across in all directions. Even though it would create a sonic boom, the Shuttle's re-entry dynamics never had the effect upon the air as if a bomb exploded.
True, except in the case of the Columbia disaster. But even then, I'd disagree with the characterization of there having been an explosion. The Shuttle broke up, and there were several flare-ups. Megalightning might have been a contributing factor to the failure of the controlled re-entry, but the real problem was that without maintaining the proper angle of attack, the Shuttle was no match for the frictional heat, and it disintegrated.
@viscount aero: Thanks for your kind comments. I'm just following the evidence, but what I'm finding is that it leads somewhere. Sometimes I think that some of the people in the thunderbolts crowd are scared to take a closer look, for fear that the evidence will not support their claims that the Universe is electric. Well, fear not. The Universe is actually electric! So look closely, and the picture will come into sharp focus. Of course, not every EU claim is correct. Nor have all of my claims stood the test of time. But if we keep questioning, and keep assimilating more and more information, and keep challenging theories to match data, all will be revealed.
The cool part is that with time, it gets easier. It's like putting together a puzzle. You start by fitting individual pieces together. But then you get a sense for what you're actually putting together, and then it gets a lot easier. Well, we're at that point. These aren't just epiphanies anymore, or alternative hypotheses. These are far more accurate descriptions of the phenomena, based on plausible physics. In other words, this is real science, and we are the pioneers.
Lloyd & I have been discussing how to move this kind of thing along. We'd like to organize workgroups, with expertise in particular topics, to gather up information, and to produce documents explaining the state of the art. Sometimes that means that there are still a number of hypotheses on the table. Well, what are they? What is the evidence? What are the anomalies in the existing theories? We'd like to see review articles that lay all of this stuff out, so that the next person can get it all in one place. And we're thinking of this as being very dynamic, where new information is going to pop up all of the time, presenting new opportunities for increases in the specificity of the theories.
Currently, we use this forum for presenting new information, and hypotheses based on it. That's a great benefit to the people involved in the discussion. But after the fact, how does somebody else get the gist of what was concluded? You have to read the whole thread to understand it, and that's just impossible. So we'd like to see documents that summarize discussions. We believe that this could greatly expand the number of people contributing to this emerging scientific paradigm. A certain number of people are willing to participate in individual threads. But what if every time people get interested in something, they can find a summary document, and go right to the topic of interest, finding out what's already been done, and injecting their 2 cents? In other words, what if we could combine all of these individual efforts into a community project?
So we're trying to define a process for creating and updating such documents. Basically, instead of there being a new thread when new information emerges, making it even more difficult to determine the current status of a topic, rather, a footnote should be added to the existing document, saying exactly where the new information fits in. And that's where the next discussion begins. The "summary" document might have a lot of footnotes, where possible interpretations branch off into their own respective discussions. But then the conclusions of those discussions can be woven back into the summary at some later date.
It sounds like a lot of work, until you compare it to the work that we're already doing in these interminable threads. How much effort does it take to get up to speed on an issue? How much time is wasted discussing stuff, when there was already a discussion on the same topic? How much duplication of labor is actually going on here? What if we could create centralized resources for each topic, summarizing discussions, so people could build on what has gone before? We believe that we'd see a lot more value. (See Improve Science and Scientific Method for more info on this.)
So are any of you willing to be in a workgroup on bolides? We're not asking for any additional effort on anybody's part — just that existing efforts be expended in a slightly different way. Whenever a new thread on bolides pops up on the forum, create a stub article on my site. Maybe enter a few quick comments about some of the things discussed. Later, others in the workgroup can tweak the article, little bits at a time. And be sure to post a link to the summary article back into the thunderbolts thread, so that people reading the thread will also know that there is a summary document in progress. To do a massive amount of scholarship on any particular topic is obviously a big undertaking, and that's not what we're talking about. We're just talking about people having it in the backs of their minds that for every topic, there is a central resource that briefly identifies that main points. So would any of you guys be willing to help out with this?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Wouldn't a chemical testing of the bolide fragments reveal something about what happened to it upon entry? (you mentioned a spectrographic analysis of the plume in the air--something that wasn't done).
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
I was thinking that any water would have boiled off in the flare. I don't actually think that the "clouds" were water, but I'm still not sure that the meteorite fragments tell the whole story. Are the fragments typically pitted, like volcanic pumice, revealing the absence of stuff that boiled off? If not, then the ice would have to have been separate from the chondritic matter. I "think" that recent evidence from comets (e.g., Tempel 1) shows a lot less ice than previously expected. Does this apply to asteroids and meteoroids too? (As you can see, there's a lot that I don't know.)
And again, great diagrams. You make things very clear and accessible.
Meteorologists say that thunderstorm electrification is triboelectricity, from hail falling through the air!
But that just ain't right...
But if we keep questioning, and keep assimilating more and more information, and keep challenging theories to match data, all will be revealed.
