viscount aero wrote: As for me I cannot see how one would surmise from observation that there was not an explosion. There was aerial fire which denotes ignition. You don't see this? How would billowing aerial fire come into existence otherwise?
A fire doesn't guarantee that there was an explosion.
Well sure. You can go light a barbecue and throw on some hot dogs and burgers and there is no explosion. But consider everything observed: fire with concussion. What is that? In Russia there was destruction on the ground in the form of architectural damage at the hands of a giant blast wave. Otherwise, what was the mechanism behind the destruction? I am not of the belief that thunder and lightning only would have produced that result.
CharlesChandler wrote: Anyway, I did read somewhere today that there were 3 booms. Perhaps these corresponded with the 3 brightest flare-ups. I'm thinking that these were electrostatic discharges. So perhaps they weren't sonic booms, but just the "thunder" from the discharges? Or 1 of them was a sonic boom, and the other 2 were thunder? Regardless, there was a substantial amount of sustained energy release, which produced a steady trail of smoke, and which continued to flare after the bolide was gone. Explosions don't act like that.
It is determined that the entire train was smoke? If so, then, what constituted the contents of the smoke? The 3 booms: Thunder is the acoustic wave produced from the sudden heating and expansion of the air along the path of the electrical discharge which heats the air to 30,000 to 55,000 *F. A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion.
Being that this was an ionized event, some of the booms being thunder is highly likely but is that all it was? I've been right next to a fireball of lightning, literally, as I drove through Texas. The concussion sounded exactly like a giant firework boom, with a sudden attack and decay, like a bomb. It slightly moved the car over beyond my control of the wheel but I was able to regain bearings quickly. I do think and believe that this aspect of the meteor event did happen. But sonic booms can sound exactly like bolt lightning thunder. Therefore I am not convinced that lightning and thunder were the only events.
Would a sonic boom and/or thunder--a combination of the two phenomena--be enough to cause such extensive destruction such as blowing the top of a factory off?
CharlesChandler wrote: So it's starting to look like we have a mixed bag of phenomena, and a variety of mechanisms at work.
Agree +1000
CharlesChandler wrote:
D_Archer wrote: There is no tumbling either.
No, we can safely assume that it's going to tumble. When did you ever see anything falling through the air that wasn't tumbling, unless of course it was an airplane with dedicated control surfaces to prevent it?
I do believe the meteor was tumbling. I think most do tumble as their shapes are highly irregular. I don't at all believe it was spherical however. That is nearly 100% likely to not be the case. It was an irregularly shaped object with an irregular surface in all likelihood.
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote: It is determined that the entire train was smoke?
Even if that was water that got split into atomic hydrogen and oxygen, that's still not an "explosion". (I'm calling attention to the fact that while there were 3 or more flare-ups, and 3 or more booms, there was also a sustained energy release.) So I'll grant you that my model doesn't explain explosions. (...yet?... ) But it does explain twin trails, that began at a specific point, and then stepped down in size at a specific point. These are details that aren't explained by any other model.
viscount aero wrote: If so, then, what constituted the contents of the smoke?
I think that it was burnt bolide (whatever that happened to be).
viscount aero wrote: Would a sonic boom and/or thunder--a combination of the two phenomena--be enough to cause such extensive destruction such as blowing the top of a factory off?
Let's not forget that they don't have much in the way of building codes. I've never heard of a building falling down because of a sonic boom, but we shouldn't make assumptions about how well it was built, or what kind of condition it was in.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote: Let's not forget that they don't have much in the way of building codes. I've never heard of a building falling down because of a sonic boom, but we shouldn't make assumptions about how well it was built, or what kind of condition it was in.
I don't think the building code glib phraseology explains anything at all. Even if the buildings are inferior they still stand as architectural structures and were destroyed to various levels from several km away. That takes tremendous force even on weak dwellings.
"Weak building standards" were mentioned right away in the press releases. I think that is a red herring. I think there is a mixture of apples and oranges going on but with very little being actually explained. We have a shock wave from ..... what? A sonic boom or an explosion? The press releases all mention both, often in the same paragraph. But it all goes unexplained and the reader is just to accept what is written without questioning it. The sonic booms, which I think happened, are not chemically reactive explosions in the traditionally thought of sense. So why was there billowing flame which implies a chemical/molecular reaction? Why are the official reports all using the term "explosion" along with "sonic boom.' The two are not the same thing.
Were there only flashes, as in lightning arcs, then there would be no cooler temperature fire. But fire was observed. What was burning? And was the burning the aftermath of the event that created the blast wave? Or was it purely a sound wave that created destruction, with the fire being merely molten bolide material?
The wave that propagated had to come from an main event. Would a sonic boom be able to release 500 kilotons of energy, the power equivalent to more than 30 Hiroshima bombs? I know that sound can be weaponized and has been (if not off the record). Sound can be devastating. So pick one
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
All the eyewitnesses describe the Chelyabinsk as an explosion, many thought they were under attack. Even the media and NASA call it either a detonation or explosion. there was flaring up while the meteor was building up energy, and there were flashes. The flashes are most likely results of electric discharge. The discharges most likely released the compressive force exerted on the ionised air and meteor and caused the shockwaves (my theory). As to the buildup of the charge and direct cause of the explosive light flash, that seems to be up for debate. There is certainly an electric phenomena going on... bright rapid flashes (like static electricity), plasma tail, signature corkscrew on the twin tails when the meteor mostly disintegrated, and the shockwave was probably produced by the z-pinch effect releasing its hold after the moving charge was no longer charged (ie no more b-field all of a sudden).
PS: Forgot to mention, the principle behind the railgun is NOT a coulomb explosion which propels a projectile out of a cannon LOL.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: All the eyewitnesses describe the Chelyabinsk as an explosion, many thought they were under attack. Even the media and NASA call it either a detonation or explosion. there was flaring up while the meteor was building up energy, and there were flashes. The flashes are most likely results of electric discharge. The discharges most likely released the compressive force exerted on the ionised air and meteor and caused the shockwaves (my theory). As to the buildup of the charge and direct cause of the explosive light flash, that seems to be up for debate. There is certainly an electric phenomena going on... bright rapid flashes (like static electricity), plasma tail, signature corkscrew on the twin tails when the meteor mostly disintegrated, and the shockwave was probably produced by the z-pinch effect releasing its hold after the moving charge was no longer charged (ie no more b-field all of a sudden).
PS: Forgot to mention, the principle behind the railgun is NOT a coulomb explosion which propels a projectile out of a cannon LOL.
Agree.
And about the railgun, as you say the coulomb explosion to propel the projectile is not the point. It isn't about what is used to propel the projectile. They cannot have the projectile arrange to enter the atmosphere at 30,000mph to create a fiery plume so they must create a laboratory condition to mimic such an event as close as possible--the point being about the charge separation that takes place thereafter.
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: The principle behind the railgun is NOT a coulomb explosion which propels a projectile out of a cannon LOL.
There are a couple different designs. Here's the brief description of one of them, from the Wikipedia article on railguns.
Wikipedia wrote: A plasma armature is formed by an arc of ionised gas that is used to push a solid, non-conducting payload in a similar manner to the propellant gas pressure in a conventional gun.
The "ionized gas that is used to push a solid..." would explain the fireball coming out of the barrel. Lorentz forces do not.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Here we go again
Try and read the whole paraghraph in context:
A railgun is an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher based on similar principles to the homopolar motor. A railgun comprises a pair of parallel conducting rails, along which a sliding armature is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the armature and then back along the other rail.[2]
The armature may be an integral part of the projectile, but it may also be configured to accelerate a separate, electrically isolated or non-conducting projectile. Solid, metallic sliding conductors are often the preferred form of railgun armature but "plasma" or "hybrid" armatures can also be used. A plasma armature is formed by an arc of ionised gas that is used to push a solid, non-conducting payload in a similar manner to the propellant gas pressure in a conventional gun. A hybrid armature uses a pair of "plasma" contacts to interface a metallic armature to the gun rails. Solid armatures may also "transition" into hybrid armatures, typically after a particular velocity threshold is exceeded.
Maybe the main picture from the wikipedia entry can help:
F=I X B (cross product -> right hand rule) The circles are the magnetic field, like the one around the flying fireball.
There is no coulomb explosion. Anyways, this thread is just about proving who's right an who's wrong, and not about seeking the truth. Since you always get the last word, you win. You are right Charles. You get the gold medal. But I still think you're confused
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
OK, so maybe I'm about to learn something here! I looked at that diagram, and I didn't see any net force in it. The opposing currents (parallel to the rails) are creating opposing magnetic fields. These will cancel out, with no net field. So what is there for the cross-over field (generated by the current through the "armature") to push against, taking the superposition principle into account?
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Hang on a second — I might have answered my own question. Here are the lines of force from two opposing electric currents.
I thought that the fields cancelled out, but it looks like they just get squashed together. That would explain the magnetic pressure between them (i.e., what I sometimes call the "magnetic push" effect). But I had never done the simulation to see what the lines of force were actually doing.
So the field from the cross-over current is actually parallel to those lines of force (at least in the middle), but it's trying to shove more field density in there, and that's where the magnetic pressure comes from?
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
If you follow the right hand rule, the b-field between the rails/wires will always point up. The magnetic field strength would be a vector addition of the contribution from both currents. The field lines do not squish eachother, rather they add onto eachother. If the currents were parallel then there would be some subtracting going on due to the opposite direction of the b field at any point in between the wires. So in our case the b field is pointing up in between the parallel wires. Pick a point right in the center and draw a little arrow up denoting the b field. Now introduce a current carrying conductor with a current going from left to right and draw an arrow representing the direction of the current. Now you have an arrow pointing up and an arrow pointing right. The cross product is the force acting on this third wire (the projectile) and it would be pointing out (towards you, perpendicular to the plane formed by the two arrows).
The railgun diagram demonstrates the principle. I'm pretty sure there would be many engineering tweaks and tricks to get it working we'll (like adding frictionless arc/plasma contacts).
Not sure what the simulator design is demonstrating. In reality the field of one wire woud act on the other wire. The wires would repel eachother (opposite of z pinch effect). Looking at your diagram gives one the impression there is a void where the current runs, which is not the case, there woud be a b field pointing up.
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
The field lines do not squish each other, rather they add onto each other.
Would this be the same as increased flux density, and found on magnetic bow shocks?
I have a hard time imagining contorted magnetic fields and how they interact.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Sparky, the magnetic field lines do not interact. The lines are basically tracing the places on a plane of equal strength. The same way that the lines in a topographic map do not interact. If there are a lot of lines close together, it means there is a bigger change in magnetic strength, just like on a topographic map lines that are close together represent a steep hill or valley. However magnetic fields act on moving charged particles, and I guess this would create a sort force field protecting the earth from incoming radiation and solar plasma ejections except when the solar storms are too strong and some of the excessive solar ejected plasma manages to leak through and reach the poles. Maybe this is the bowshock you are referring to? It's the interaction between the magnetic field and plasma that causes this bowshock, and not the magnetic field lines being pushed or squished by the Sun's magnetic field or other magnetic fields. I think we're diverging a bit from the original thread, anyhow I hope this simplistic explanation of mine helps somehow.
On seciond thought, I just looked at that drawing/graphic again. The color denotes the magnetic strength. There is no indication of what the lines represent. Is there a legend that goes with the graphic? Some explanation of what the lines represent?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: Sparky, the magnetic field lines do not interact. The lines are basically tracing the places on a plane of equal strength. The same way that the lines in a topographic map do not interact. If there are a lot of lines close together, it means there is a bigger change in magnetic strength, just like on a topographic map lines that are close together represent a steep hill or valley. However magnetic fields act on moving charged particles, and I guess this would create a sort force field protecting the earth from incoming radiation and solar plasma ejections except when the solar storms are too strong and some of the excessive solar ejected plasma manages to leak through and reach the poles. Maybe this is the bowshock you are referring to? It's the interaction between the magnetic field and plasma that causes this bowshock, and not the magnetic field lines being pushed or squished by the Sun's magnetic field or other magnetic fields. I think we're diverging a bit from the original thread, anyhow I hope this simplistic explanation of mine helps somehow.
On seciond thought, I just looked at that drawing/graphic again. The color denotes the magnetic strength. There is no indication of what the lines represent. Is there a legend that goes with the graphic? Some explanation of what the lines represent?
In all honesty I'm more confused. Your explanations are vague and hard to comprehend. Maybe in your engineering bubble world mind you are all simple and clear but not to me and probably several other readers.
I'm an illustrator by trade and would be happy to map and draw a diagram that is actually understandable. The diagrams and graphics thus far posted don't make any sense to me. I am certain others are confused, too, unless I'm the only one who just doesn't get it. I am sure it is simple but the additional explaining has overly complicated it.
I do have enough knowledge about this stuff to get into trouble. So..... can you help me out here?
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: If you follow the right hand rule, the b-field between the rails/wires will always point up.
No, I need to see the lines of force, and then I can visualize it. In this case, Ampère's circuital law is relevant, which has a different right-hand-rule (for the curl instead of the simplified vectors). Where I got screwed up was in never having actually examined the lines of force for this configuration. Anyway, this is how I would describe the phenomenon (just in case I'm still missing something)...
Magnetic lines of force repel each other. Therefore, between two opposing currents, the circuital lines of force get compressed, and the repulsion constitutes magnetic pressure (a.k.a., the "magnetic push effect"). The same is true in a current-carrying coil — along the axis of the coil, the magnetic lines of force are all going in the same direction, hence they do not close on themselves as they would if they were of opposite polarity, but rather, they repel each other. This creates an outward pressure on the wire. And finally, we can think of the railgun as just a different geometrical instantiation of the current-carrying coil, except that instead of the current going around in a circle, it just does two 90 degree turns. But the effect is the same, in that there is magnetic pressure between the rails, and going around the 90 degree turns, because of the concentrated field density in the interior. What makes it a "gun" is that the cross-over piece can slide, all the while having magnetic pressure exerted on it. Thus it can get accelerated down the rails.
Let me know if that is not correct, and thanks for your patience. Like I said earlier, I rarely get anything right on the first try, but I (obviously) am not scared to run my mouth, prove that I'm a fool, and learn something as a result. (The objective is not step #1 or step #2, but step #3. )
But now I want to know what causes the huge volume of plasma getting ejected from the railgun. Can you explain that?
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote: In all honesty I'm more confused. Your explanations are vague and hard to comprehend. Maybe in your engineering bubble world mind you are all simple and clear but not to me and probably several other readers.
I'm an illustrator by trade and would be happy to map and draw a diagram that is actually understandable. The diagrams and graphics thus far posted don't make any sense to me. I am certain others are confused, too, unless I'm the only one who just doesn't get it. I am sure it is simple but the additional explaining has overly complicated it.
I do have enough knowledge about this stuff to get into trouble. So..... can you help me out here?
The diagrams provided have no explanation of what exactly they represent. So that doesn;t make things any sipler. The one provided by Charles has no description or explanation. But they seem to suggest that there fild from one current does not reach the other wire which would be incorrect. But without knowing what the lines mean, it's hard to make a clear and coherent statement that is not confusing to the layman. The second graphic posted by Sparky also is not fully described. The colours are described but not the lines, I don;t know what the lines mean in the graphic, they are not described.
I'm sorry that my posts have been confusing, there is a wide ranging audience on this forum. On this thread alone, we have ilustrators, newbies, and some like Charles who are highly scientific/technical, who even have their own EU theories and scientific blogs.
)
