I formatted a couple of pages, an initial broad-brushed order of events evident in the meteor's entry phase (I apologize for the awful resolution--the forum doesn't allow hi-rez images):
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: This is why Alfven kept insisting that we can't just observe magnetic fields without understanding the currents in space plasma, and vice versa. Currents induce magnetic fields, which can induce secondary currents, which can induce other magnetic fields and so on. It can get quite confusing. That's why all aspects must be taken into consideration together, currents, electric fields, magnetic fields, and how one affects the other and vice versa.
Sure, but we can at least identify the prime movers, and perhaps consider some non-linear feedback from the secondary effects. No we're not going to get an exact solution accurate way past the decimal point. But if we just had a basic model that addressed the salient aspects of the phenomena, we'd have more than we have right now.
justcurious wrote: ...applying the well known and proven laws of electromagnetism (all those funny vector math/calculus equations)...
I no longer take EEs at their word, and I don't defer to elitism. I've seen enough EE constructs that were gibberish that I now insist on inspecting every piece. For example, EEs think that a vacuum is a perfect insulator. But plasma physicists will tell you that a vacuum is a perfect conductor. (That's the opposite of an insulator.) The EEs respond that sometimes electrons can tunnel through a perfect insulator, and then it just seems like it's a conductor, when really it's an insulator, but it has tunnels drilled through it. So when do tunnels form? All the time. So what are the electrons tunneling through — is it the insulator, or just the limits of the EE paradigm? The bottom line is that when the "experts" can disagree, so absolutely, on such a simple thing, I don't defer to the elitism of either of them. If I want to understand something, I break it down into the individual components. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anybody else — I'm not using my brains here — I'm using my naivete and my patience. So far so good...
Sparky wrote: So the meteor is becoming positive? The Earth is considered negative, isn't it? At 50-400v/m? Was the flash equalization?
Not in the fair weather field. In STP air, it takes 3 MV/m to get an arc discharge. The breakdown voltage relaxes with altitude, as a direct function of the density of the air. At 15 km above the surface, it's about 1 MV/m. (BTW, this is why scientists didn't think that blue jets or red sprites were possible — there shouldn't be enough resistance in the stratosphere to get arc discharges. Only when NASA accidentally photographed one did the evidence become inescapable.) Below the breakdown voltage, you get a corona discharge, or nothing at all. So the fair weather field is nowhere near sufficient for an arc discharge. Of course, that's potentially a bit irrelevant. The resting field between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere is not what determines whether or not the bolide will flash. Rather, the field between the bolide and the Earth is what's important. Pulses in E-fields have been measured as meteoroids passed overhead, in at least one case of sufficient strength to generate corona discharges (i.e., during the Vitim event). But I didn't find any literature citing E-fields sufficient for arc discharges, nor any reports of lightning strikes from bolides.
Sparky wrote: What about the electrons that radar sees?
The doesn't prove, or even imply, an electric current. EM waves bounce off of the ionosphere for the same reason, without any sustained current.
I think those drawings are a good start. However, I'm not so comfortable advancing my own pet theories and speculations. I'm still in learning mode and try to contribute in my own little way, but I am not personally satisfied and confident that I have "figured it all out". My comments were mostly observations and snippets for discussion. Worlds in Collision, now that's a hell of a storyboard to illustrate (do I sound like a broken record yet?).
Goldminer
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
kiwi» Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:03 pm wrote: Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Lloyd wrote: Asteroid Too Electrical Sonic Booms Charles Chandler figured out that sonic booms seem to be a result of a bow shock of negative electric charge in front of objects,
Jonathan Tennenbaum wrote: For example, sound is not a vibration of the air. A sound wave, we know today, is an electromagnetic process involving the rapid assembly and disassembly of geometrical configurations of molecules. In modern physics, this kind of self-organizing process is known as a "soliton." Although much more detailed experimental work needs to be done, we know in principle that different frequencies of coherent solitons correspond to distinct geometries on the microscopic or quantum level of organization of the process. This was already indicated by the work of Helmholtz's contemporary, Bernhard Riemann, who refuted most of the acoustic doctrines of Helmholtz in his 1859 paper on acoustical shock waves.1
I think it was Solar (or Web-o) who posted a link that contained an article on the craft ( pre Lacross) that impacted the Moon some years back on an old thread I was browsing last week. It said that although no "flash" was detected they did record "whistlers" coinciding with the crash . . . whistler waves are an EM function as we know . . . not much chance of any "data" along those lines being around I guess concerning this event ?
Some times I am a little slow on the uptake. I have read the article, The Foundations of Scientific Musical Tuning and others on the same subject many times. I recall a discussion that I had with Walter Babin, the owner of the General Science Journal website, several years ago. He had mentioned to me that he had found a connection with the Imperial measuring system and its superiority in weather and Solar system measurements. I never did get him to divulge to me what he had found. I think I understand, now. Even our time measurements are based on the measure described in your link. Eric Dollard, Symbolic Operators; Steinmetz to Pythagoras, Backward in Time, complains that people do not take these relationships seriously, all the time when he tries to explain Tesla's ideas.
So, down with the "metric system" up with the Imperial system, and phi!
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: I'm not so comfortable advancing my own pet theories and speculations. [...] I'm still in learning mode...
Never held me back! So you're going to learn, without identifying anomalies, proposing solutions, finding anomalies in the solutions, and then proposing new solutions?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: I think those drawings are a good start. However, I'm not so comfortable advancing my own pet theories and speculations. I'm still in learning mode and try to contribute in my own little way, but I am not personally satisfied and confident that I have "figured it all out". My comments were mostly observations and snippets for discussion. Worlds in Collision, now that's a hell of a storyboard to illustrate (do I sound like a broken record yet?).
Those are screen grabs, not drawings. I haven't done any drawings at this point. I established at the outset my observation of what occurred. What happened is indicated in the notes. As far as I see it, 3 major things happened that were directly observable indicated over 8 points:
1. entry and gradual brightening 2. a sudden massive brightening: explosion #1 3. a slight but noticeable dimming then another super brightening pulse: explosion #2 4. sudden dimming and then reveal of the emerging vapor trail structure once hidden by the luminous explosions 5. 2 distinct areas of bulging in the vapor trail structure, remains of explosion #1 and #2 6. lingering massive bulge area from explosion #1, billowing aerial fire 7. a small but observable glowing tip (#3--what remains of the main projectile) is leading away from and ahead of the lingering vapor and smoke plume 8. remaning double columnar vapor trail with highly discernible pinched section that demarcates the events of explosion 1 and 2
The first question is: Why is explosion #2's bulge remnant smaller than #1's? Also, what created the sharp demarcation line between the two bulges that is evidenced in the vapor trail? It almost appears quantized, a sharp stepping down in intensity and volume of vapor/smoke. Yet explosion #2 was brighter.
It may be because explosion #1 was led up to from entry to detonation, whereas #2 was secondary and had less "behind it" even though it was an apparently brighter pulse.
Something is very key to understanding why the lingering fiery bulge from explosion #1 remained for so long and powerfully--something that has not yet been determined (but is staring at us in the face). Something kept the material burning and molten/oxidized. The vapor is white, not black. So if it indicates smoke then it is an oxygen rich fire. It may also be a mixture--smoke with water vapor.
Water vapor introduces the idea of electrolysis and/or dissociation of H20 and the carbon in the meteor's body. The audible sounds, their order and number, and the damage to dwellings on the ground are other points to tie into the purely visual/aerial phenomenon.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: This is why Alfven kept insisting that we can't just observe magnetic fields without understanding the currents in space plasma, and vice versa. Currents induce magnetic fields, which can induce secondary currents, which can induce other magnetic fields and so on. It can get quite confusing. That's why all aspects must be taken into consideration together, currents, electric fields, magnetic fields, and how one affects the other and vice versa.
Sure, but we can at least identify the prime movers, and perhaps consider some non-linear feedback from the secondary effects. No we're not going to get an exact solution accurate way past the decimal point. But if we just had a basic model that addressed the salient aspects of the phenomena, we'd have more than we have right now.
Identifying the prime movers... Of course you can. I never said anything to the contrary. You might want to learn from plasma physicists and cosmologists who have already researched this stuff. It will probably make your life easier. They already have the basic models. If you would just take the time to learn the basics of electricity, you might avoid making a fool of yourself. I highly recommend the Essential Guide. It's the best simplified summary on the topic that I could have ever imagined. They really did a great job.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: ...applying the well known and proven laws of electromagnetism (all those funny vector math/calculus equations)...
I no longer take EEs at their word, and I don't defer to elitism. I've seen enough EE constructs that were gibberish that I now insist on inspecting every piece. For example, EEs think that a vacuum is a perfect insulator. But plasma physicists will tell you that a vacuum is a perfect conductor. (That's the opposite of an insulator.) The EEs respond that sometimes electrons can tunnel through a perfect insulator, and then it just seems like it's a conductor, when really it's an insulator, but it has tunnels drilled through it. So when do tunnels form? All the time. So what are the electrons tunneling through — is it the insulator, or just the limits of the EE paradigm? The bottom line is that when the "experts" can disagree, so absolutely, on such a simple thing, I don't defer to the elitism of either of them. If I want to understand something, I break it down into the individual components. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anybody else — I'm not using my brains here — I'm using my naivete and my patience. So far so good...
You might want to try using your brain, it can be a useful tool. I don't know what you're talking about (insulators, tunnels drilled???). Everyone knows that EM waves can travel in a "vacuum" (at least the vacuum as we know it today). Regarding insulators and electrons, you really lost me there. EE paradigm? Lowly engineers build stuff that works, like bridges, space-crafts, and even wireless communication systems that use "invisible fields", where does the paradigm part come in?
Peratt is one of the world's leading researchers in plasma and plasma cosmology. He simulated plasma taking on the shape of galaxies using supercomputers by applying simple, elegant proven formulas from the physics of electricity and magnetism without the need for dark matter, dark energy, and imaginary bosons, gluons and multidimensional black holes. You missed the point completely. The point was that he is making great contributions to science by working out the interactions and secondary effects discussed earlier, thanks to his access to some Cray supercomputers and some good students. You have the opportunity to learn about real science, instead of the big bang superstitions.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I'm not so comfortable advancing my own pet theories and speculations. [...] I'm still in learning mode...
Never held me back! So you're going to learn, without identifying anomalies, proposing solutions, finding anomalies in the solutions, and then proposing new solutions?
Yup, I can see that. I personally prefer to get a better handle on the basics. I have some very basic knowledge of electricity, I got my EE degree over 15 years ago, never practised in the field. So I have some re-learning to do there, plus all the plasma stuff, plus a lot more. But the one most important thing, whatever I do propose in a confident manner should at least be based on sound logic and reason. What is your background Charles?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I'm not so comfortable advancing my own pet theories and speculations. [...] I'm still in learning mode...
Never held me back! So you're going to learn, without identifying anomalies, proposing solutions, finding anomalies in the solutions, and then proposing new solutions?
Yup, I can see that. I personally prefer to get a better handle on the basics. I have some very basic knowledge of electricity, I got my EE degree over 15 years ago, never practised in the field. So I have some re-learning to do there, plus all the plasma stuff, plus a lot more. But the one most important thing, whatever I do propose in a confident manner should at least be based on sound logic and reason. What is your background Charles?
What are your thoughts about my points that I have illustrated with the screen grabs? What electrical events led to 2 distinct moments of brightening?
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
viscount aero wrote: Something is very key to understanding why the lingering fiery bulge from explosion #1 remained for so long and powerfully--something that has not yet been determined (but is staring at us in the face). Something kept the material burning and molten/oxidized. The vapor is white, not black. So if it indicates smoke then it is an oxygen rich fire. It may also be a mixture--smoke with water vapor.
"Fire" is recombination, usually both electrons recombining with atomic nuclei, and atoms recombining into molecules. The research that I've been quoting says that frictional ionization is separating charges, thus converting molecular nitrogen and oxygen into plasma. The plasma will recombine into molecules when it gets the chance, and it will produce the fire that we see in the videos, similar to the fire in the railgun videos. (@justcurious: you never answered my question on what produces the huge volume of plasma coming out of railguns, if the whole thing is just the Lorentz force.)
Note that "fire" doesn't necessarily mean that something got oxidized. The reformation of molecular nitrogen (N2) will do the same thing, though we could expect the full complement of reactions to occur (N2, N2O, NO, O2). All of these will produce the "fiery" radiation observed. And yes, there could have been a little H2O up there, but I think that it was mostly N/O.
Also note that the frictional ionization model accounts for lingering charge separations, sometimes lasting for tens of minutes, in the comas of bolides. Such separations can only be evidence that some distance was put between the electrons and the atoms, and the resistance of the air then sustained the charge separation. Without such a mechanism, we can expect only a "fireball" bolide, where it is only the bolide that is on fire, not the coma continuing to flare after the bolide is long gone. But in an ionized, detached bow shock, the atoms are stripped of their electrons as they plow into the boundary layer, and this puts some distance between opposite charges, enabling a prolonged charge recombination.
justcurious wrote: You might want to learn from plasma physicists and cosmologists who have already researched this stuff. It will probably make your life easier. They already have the basic models.
Can somebody lay out the basic model of bolides? Then we'd like to challenge it to explain the observations at Chelyabinsk.
justcurious wrote: I don't know what you're talking about (insulators, tunnels drilled???).
Open book EE question: Is a perfect vacuum a 1) perfect insulator, or 2) a perfect conductor?
justcurious wrote: You have the opportunity to learn about real science, instead of the big bang superstitions.
If I could just get a straight answer to simple questions...
justcurious wrote: What is your background Charles?
I have a GED and a broadband connection to the Internet.
viscount aero wrote: What are your thoughts about my points that I have illustrated with the screen grabs? What electrical events led to 2 distinct moments of brightening?
At least for now, I'm sticking with my "rolling bolide" model, with the detached ionized bow shock, and with a solenoidal magnetic field directing electrons into the bolide. The brightenings would have been flares in the detached bow shock. The reason why I don't think that they were "explosions" (in the sense that everybody else is thinking, i.e., at the bolide itself) is that there would have been evidence in the trail. Something that "exploded" doesn't produce a straight stream of vapor. So I think that the "explosion" was a flare in the detached bow shock, which didn't affect the straight vapor trail coming directly off of the bolide.
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Something is very key to understanding why the lingering fiery bulge from explosion #1 remained for so long and powerfully--something that has not yet been determined (but is staring at us in the face). Something kept the material burning and molten/oxidized. The vapor is white, not black. So if it indicates smoke then it is an oxygen rich fire. It may also be a mixture--smoke with water vapor.
"Fire" is recombination, usually both electrons recombining with atomic nuclei, and atoms recombining into molecules. The research that I've been quoting says that frictional ionization is separating charges, thus converting molecular nitrogen and oxygen into plasma. The plasma will recombine into molecules when it gets the chance, and it will produce the fire that we see in the videos, similar to the fire in the railgun videos. (@justcurious: you never answered my question on what produces the huge volume of plasma coming out of railguns, if the whole thing is just the Lorentz force.)
Note that "fire" doesn't necessarily mean that something got oxidized. The reformation of molecular nitrogen (N2) will do the same thing, though we could expect the full complement of reactions to occur (N2, N2O, NO, O2). All of these will produce the "fiery" radiation observed. And yes, there could have been a little H2O up there, but I think that it was mostly N/O.
Also note that the frictional ionization model accounts for lingering charge separations, sometimes lasting for tens of minutes, in the comas of bolides. Such separations can only be evidence that some distance was put between the electrons and the atoms, and the resistance of the air then sustained the charge separation. Without such a mechanism, we can expect only a "fireball" bolide, where it is only the bolide that is on fire, not the coma continuing to flare after the bolide is long gone. But in an ionized, detached bow shock, the atoms are stripped of their electrons as they plow into the boundary layer, and this puts some distance between opposite charges, enabling a prolonged charge recombination.
Great points. This lays a good foundation. Clearly what is observed is that the bolide is not the only thing on fire whatsoever. The screen grabs show this unequivocally. So this is the mystery although you believe the prolonged billowing fire was due to charge recombination. It obviously wasn't the rock on fire that caused all of this. I think the rock was the facilitator, the enabler, and created the electrical circuit.
The next item of interest is the shock wave and the sounds. There was either a series of sonic booms or these were something else, akin to thunder after lightning. At any rate, the blast wave probably traveled faster than sound to destroy windows and blow away brickwork. What was this, then, but displaced air?
viscount aero wrote: What are your thoughts about my points that I have illustrated with the screen grabs? What electrical events led to 2 distinct moments of brightening?
CharlesChandler wrote: At least for now, I'm sticking with my "rolling bolide" model, with the detached ionized bow shock, and with a solenoidal magnetic field directing electrons into the bolide. The brightenings would have been flares in the detached bow shock. The reason why I don't think that they were "explosions" (in the sense that everybody else is thinking, i.e., at the bolide itself) is that there would have been evidence in the trail. Something that "exploded" doesn't produce a straight stream of vapor. So I think that the "explosion" was a flare in the detached bow shock, which didn't affect the straight vapor trail coming directly off of the bolide.
That's excellent. Nothing exploded per se. It appears that something was ignited versus exploded, and air was rapidly displaced as it was super-heated instantly in such duration and volume. The bolide overwhelmed the atmosphere's equilibrium to orders of extremes.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
I'll give my opinion about the points viscount, but tomorrow. I like how you laid out the events nicely sequenced out. Makes discussing the subject more precise. I work all day and work all night, it's time for my morning sleep. Will continue this great coversation during my work breaks tomorrow
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: I'll give my opinion about the points viscount, but tomorrow. I like how you laid out the events nicely sequenced out. Makes discussing the subject more precise. I work all day and work all night, it's time for my morning sleep. Will continue this great coversation during my work breaks tomorrow
Great, thanks. I created it so we can all discuss it with greater ease. It does help to just get the stuff out of our heads and onto something tenable. I'm going to make another one concerning the bolide itself and the charge separation phenomena that ensued. I'm seeing using the imagery of a ship cutting through the water and leaving a wake. That is what this is but far more complex and electrically involving. G'nite
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
1. entry and gradual brightening 2. a sudden massive brightening: explosion #1 3. a slight but noticeable dimming then another super brightening pulse: explosion #2 4. sudden dimming and then reveal of the emerging vapor trail structure once hidden by the luminous explosions 5. 2 distinct areas of bulging in the vapor trail structure, remains of explosion #1 and #2 6. lingering massive bulge area from explosion #1, billowing aerial fire 7. a small but observable glowing tip (#3--what remains of the main projectile) is leading away from and ahead of the lingering vapor and smoke plume 8. remaning double columnar vapor trail with highly discernible pinched section that demarcates the events of explosion 1 and 2
There were three distinct flashes, be it small the third , between #4 and #7,....
The bottom line is that when the "experts" can disagree, so absolutely, on such a simple thing, I don't defer to the elitism of either of them. If I want to understand something, I break it down into the individual components. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anybody else — I'm not using my brains here — I'm using my naivete and my patience. So far so good...
Sparky wrote:Not in the fair weather field. In STP air, it takes 3 MV/m to get an arc discharge. The breakdown voltage relaxes with altitude, as a direct function of the density of the air. At 15 km above the surface, it's about 1 MV/m. (BTW, this is why scientists didn't think that blue jets or red sprites were possible — there shouldn't be enough resistance in the stratosphere to get arc discharges. Only when NASA accidentally photographed one did the evidence become inescapable.) Below the breakdown voltage, you get a corona discharge, or nothing at all. So the fair weather field is nowhere near sufficient for an arc discharge. Of course, that's potentially a bit irrelevant. The resting field between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere is not what determines whether or not the bolide will flash. Rather, the field between the bolide and the Earth is what's important.Pulses in E-fields have been measured as meteoroids passed overhead, in at least one case of sufficient strength to generate corona discharges (i.e., during the Vitim event). But I didn't find any literature citing E-fields sufficient for arc discharges, nor any reports of lightning strikes from bolides.
Sparky wrote:The doesn't prove, or even imply, an electric current. EM waves bounce off of the ionosphere for the same reason, without any sustained current.
