CharlesChandler wrote: What created the anode on one side of the bolide, and the cathode on the other?
justcurious wrote: I think they are simply separated due to filamentation (pinch effect). Like charges (ie current) are attracted radially inwards and concentrating the trail, and opposite charges (opposite current) repelled radially outward. And vice versa. hence two trails. Why they are side by side, or one on top of the other etc I could not explain, but I think my explanation is valid for "why two seperate trails".
viscount aero wrote: I agree; moreover, it seems to me the ionization effect itself created the charge separation (which is an electrical circuit akin to the flash bulb) into anode/cathode and the 2 columns resulted due to that, similar to what the rail gun diagram describes.
I totally don't understand this. First we need a charge separation mechanism. The detached bow shock regime has this as frictional ionization, where the inside is positive ions, with a layer of electrons at the outer edge of the shock front. In that, there isn't going to be a side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) charge separation — it's inside-to-outside. So where do you get the side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) electric field?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: What created the anode on one side of the bolide, and the cathode on the other?
justcurious wrote: I think they are simply separated due to filamentation (pinch effect). Like charges (ie current) are attracted radially inwards and concentrating the trail, and opposite charges (opposite current) repelled radially outward. And vice versa. hence two trails. Why they are side by side, or one on top of the other etc I could not explain, but I think my explanation is valid for "why two seperate trails".
viscount aero wrote: I agree; moreover, it seems to me the ionization effect itself created the charge separation (which is an electrical circuit akin to the flash bulb) into anode/cathode and the 2 columns resulted due to that, similar to what the rail gun diagram describes.
I totally don't understand this. First we need a charge separation mechanism. The detached bow shock regime has this as frictional ionization, where the inside is positive ions, with a layer of electrons at the outer edge of the shock front. In that, there isn't going to be a side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) charge separation — it's inside-to-outside. So where do you get the side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) electric field?
I think we may be talking in circles.... the charge sep mechanism is the meteor. What else is in the sky do that? Nothing. The entry friction creates it. Without it there is no event.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote: I totally don't understand this. First we need a charge separation mechanism. The detached bow shock regime has this as frictional ionization, where the inside is positive ions, with a layer of electrons at the outer edge of the shock front. In that, there isn't going to be a side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) charge separation — it's inside-to-outside. So where do you get the side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) electric field?
I don't have the answer to your question, but I know that for example simple heat can ionize the air, and strong sudden electric fields can also shake electrons off their atoms resulting in ions and electrons. since the charges are moving, they necessarily create a magnetic field which will in turn cause filamentation and so on as described earlier. I don't think the plasma is necessarily coming out of two sides of a rock. Rather, they get seperated once out of the rock when they are free to move, filament, separate etc under the influence of the helical magnetic field (pinching etc).
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: Rather, they get separated once out of the rock when they are free to move, filament, separate etc under the influence of the helical magnetic field (pinching etc).
Would the plasma coming out of a railgun separate into two filaments, for the same reasons? Of course, there is a difference in speed between a bolide and a railgun projectile (18 km/s versus 3.5 km/s). But there should still be some separation either way, right? Did there used to be separation in the trails left by the Space Shuttles on re-entry?
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Rather, they get separated once out of the rock when they are free to move, filament, separate etc under the influence of the helical magnetic field (pinching etc).
Would the plasma coming out of a railgun separate into two filaments, for the same reasons? Of course, there is a difference in speed between a bolide and a railgun projectile (18 km/s versus 3.5 km/s). But there should still be some separation either way, right? Did there used to be separation in the trails left by the Space Shuttles on re-entry?
I could not tell, from the videos I saw of railguns, that there were filaments. I only saw the cannon head where the projectile comes out from. And there, all I saw was a big blob of fire. I also do not know what projectiles are made of, and I haven't seen videos of the projectile after it left the cannon, whether it creates a visible trail.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Here is a nice demonstration of how explosive sounds can be created from electricity alone:
justcurious wrote: And check out this transformer exploding, and the toroid cloud it creates. Explain that!
OK. That has nothing to do with electricity, except as the heat source. An internal short overheated the hydraulic fluid used to insulate the high-voltage switches inside the transformer, to the point that the hydrostatic pressure caused the failure of the containment. Past that point, it's just a fluid above its flash point that was exposed to air, and erupted in flames. The updraft so created encountered friction on its outside, slowing its ascent, while the interior of the updraft was buffered from such friction. The speed difference induced a standard boundary layer vortex. In the case of a cylindrical updraft, the "boundary layer" wraps all of the way around the cylinder, forming a toroidal vortex. Once the angular momentum is established, the toroidal vortex will generally stay organized, until the hot air has reached its equilibrium level in the atmosphere.
The same sort of toroidal vortex sometimes forms in the steam rising from Mt. Aetna, and no, that's not a toroidal plasmoid. It's just a standard fluid dynamic phenomenon.
viscount aero, If you don't mind, please explain your answer. ("Highly unlikely.")
I think they are hiding the evidence, that is why they "can't find" any pieces. Also, why would the Syrian video be banned from Youtube?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Beata-at-home wrote: viscount aero, If you don't mind, please explain your answer. ("Highly unlikely.")
I think they are hiding the evidence, that is why they "can't find" any pieces. Also, why would the Syrian video be banned from Youtube?
They have been finding pieces. And do you mean the meteor was a missile, or it was shot down by a missile? Regardless, I find the missile theory highly far-fetched at best.
Although the event is shorter as the object is smaller and enters at a sharper angle, you can see the same entry pattern with the 3 major points of interest: it descends, brightens, flares up (#1), dims, flares up again (#2)--leaving a fat bulging first part, a pinched area of dimming, then the #2 portion with the remaining bolide (#3) emerging and glowing dimmer compared to the residual plasma trail structure.
The above paper gives lot of insight into the ionization and frequencies emitted by projectiles. The triboelectric effect is not even questioned. One thing that caught my attention also was this sentence, describing some of the findings or text from an author called "TrinK" from germany: "A limiting value of charge is reached above that which charge carriers discharge by spraying off the projectile. This is known as corona discharge.", I'm guessing this is the glow we saw in the Chelyabinsk meteor before it exploded. Here's another snippet, when describing writings of "Nanevics and Tanner": "When the charge builds up to a sufficiently high potential, it discharges via a corona discharge mechanism and produces rf noise in the 1-MHz band and interferes with radio reception aboard the aircraft." According to the author, this would happen on airplanes after accumulating lots of charge due to the triboelectric effect.
I also reviewed the paper "Is electric charge separation the main process for kinetic energy transformation into the meteor phenomenon?" by P. Spurný - Z. Ceplecha Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences v.v.i., Ondrejov Observatory, Czech Republic http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... 69-08.html
It has some good diagrams of luminosity charts. It seems that this data brought them to conclude the flashes are electric events because they actually measured the duration of the pulses (no dash cams here, the real measurement equipment). Unfortnately it does not say much about the spectra observed, only that two temperatures were found, one of approx 4500 kelvin and another of approx 10000 kelvin. I reviewed many of the other related papers, the Czech observatory and scientists have been studying fireballs very intensely for quite some time. I came to the conclusion that they really know their stuff. The triboelectric effect was not a casual speculation, and it's the only explanation that fits so many of the pieces of the puzzles regarding fireballs. I encourage the sceptics to also read the other papers these Czech scientists published. This particular paper is just a beginning and much more research is needed (according to the authors). They don't discuss what causes the flash exactly, except that it can only be electricity. Other publications of theirs contain a lot of interesting and useful data.
I wish I could have access to the fuill text of this info on the Tunguska event and the electromagnetic effects observed around the point of impact. I believe it could be of interest to EU geology: Petrophysics Hints at Unexplored Impact Physics by Vladimir V. Svetsov Geological and Biological Effects of Impact Events Impact Studies 2002, pp 265-295 link: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100 ... 59388-8_13
Abstract: This paper deals with thermoluminescence and magnetization anomalies discovered around the epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska explosion of a large bolide in Central Siberia. Several mechanisms that can be caused by the event and influence the magnetization of soil and the level of thermoluminescent emission in minerals are considered. Simple estimates show that strong currents and magnetic fields can be generated through magnetohydrodynamic effects when a disintegrated meteoroid is severely decelerated by aerodynamic forces at the terminal point of the trajectory in the geomagnetic field. Available experimental results on electrification of projectiles are considered in relation to bolides. Debris particles moving in the atmosphere collect electric charges and their precipitation can cause lightning. Short-circuiting of the ionosphere and the Earth's surface through the ionized wake and the discharge channels can happen in this case, triggering a discharge of the all-Earth capacitor.
There is a lot of great literature related to fireballs. I just happenned to like these articles mentionned above. I believe the trioelectric one from the Czechs was the dominant one, thanks for whoever posted it here first.
So anyways, here is my take on the Chelyabinsk event so far...
When the meteor entered the atmosphere and started lighting/burning up (whatever you want to call it), it was the triboelectric effect, and the glow was a coronal discharge. The fragmenting of the meteor would not have been a coulomb explosion as the fragments pretty much keep their course. It would be cracking of the meteor rather than a vaporizing explosion. The cracking of the meteor in my eyes represents a discontinuity, the pieces are now seperated and suddenly new electric fields in the air/plasma arise between the various fragments (which are composed of various materials and hence charges). This sudden new environemnt would quickly increase the ionization of the air and probably mix in some other types of ions from meteor itself. THis is what I believe causes the flash, and subsequent flashes when the smaller fragments crack again. Regarding the sound wave, I believe the light explosion is just light, similiar to a flash, and that the sound wave is caused by the varying magnetic field (pinch effect). We can see from the twin trails, that the size of these trails shrunk considerably at a specific location and time. I believe that is when and where the sound wave originated from. I believe that the twin trails are twisted in opposite directions because they contain opposite free charges, one plasma contains more electrons, the other more ions. After the cracking, the meteor's b-fields would have increased significantly due to the heavy discharge of ionized matter from the meteor itself. The very thick twin trails are different than the longer more steady trail in the sky. It hung around a lot longer, and had a smell to it according to eyewitnesses.
So in summary, triboelectric effect on the metro as it moves into the atmosphere, causing cracking, which caused sudden changes in the configurations of the E field in and around the fragments provoking a flash. The sound wave would be created by the B field's sudden changes of intensities. The sound wave caused by the b-field, I did not read that anywhere, it's my own thought. Also the part (more or less) about the flash.
Confusing?
viscount aero
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
I'm glad to see a reply here as it has been quiet. I had meant to get back to it but I'm glad you did. Overall I agree with you, of course, that you corroborate the triboelectric effect that Charles disagreed with when I initially proposed it. I think it is as simple as that and does not need to be over thought. I will delve deeper into your links later but good stuff. About the sound--I think it is no different a mechanism behind that than what is observed in severe lightning strikes and thunder. In my opinion, this event, although initiated differently, involves the same mechanisms. Moreover, I think, too, that the sounds were not just from one thing but at least a couple things. One source for some of the cracks were sonic booms, another being the super-heating of the air instantly.
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Short-circuiting of the ionosphere and the Earth's surface through the ionized wake and the discharge channels can happen in this case, triggering a discharge of the all-Earth capacitor.
Suggesting that the huge flash may have been an arc to ground, hidden by the ground to bolide fog like glow discharge.
Lloyd
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Material from Another Thread Since you're resuming discussion here, I want to add some anotation etc from another thread that I think will provide a somewhat better, more holistic overview of Charles' ideas. I don't find in that other thread specifically what I was looking for with respect to triboelectricity etc, but I'll just paraphrase first here what I think I remember him saying about that. The anotation will be below after this paraphrasing.
Weak Triboelectricity Charles didn't mention triboelectricity, as far as I recall, but he discussed the effects of air friction, as well as charge effects from the ionosphere on meteors passing through. Triboelectricity is said to be from friction mainly, it seems, and Wikipedia mentions that aircraft can develop such static electricity too and rockets have to avoid taking off when clouds are overhead because the static charge can interfere with radio communication with the craft. But that's all rather weak charging. Some meteors likely approach the Earth as slowly as the space shuttles did, but they don't develop an arc discharge at such slow speeds. When lightning apparently struck Columbia, it didn't do much direct damage that I know of. I think it broke up from air turbulance after losing control, so that the heat shield no longer protected the craft. Heat did a lot of damage too, but much of the breakup was likely due to centrifugal force from rapid tumbling. But the lightning doesn't seem to have pulverized much if any of the craft or the payload etc.
Triboelectricity on Steroids That's the effects from relatively slow speed impact of an object hitting the atmosphere. A high-speed impact at over 50 km/s (I think the figure was 70, if I remember right, but I'm just estimating anyway) would specifically have the following effects, I think. Whether the object is impacting ions or atoms in the air or ionosphere, any outer electrons of air molecules that hit the object, as well as the leading face of the object itself, would be stripped off, while the remaining parts of many of the atoms would penetrate into the surface of the object to some depth, because of much greater momentum than the electrons. Many atoms would also be deflected and not penetrate. You can call the stripping of the outer electrons friction, I suppose, but normal triboelectricity doesn't involve ions penetrating into an object, so that seems to be how this would be much more powerful than typical triboelectricity. The penetration would occur at the front of the object, but the friction very well may cause the object to spin or tumble, just as an aircraft (or any other object) would surely tumble, if it went out of control at such high speed. If the object did not spin, the same effect would occur (of ions penetrating the object), but mostly on the front half where there would be greater heating than if the object were spinning. Heating would release electrons from the surface and from the interior of the object as the heat increases from the outside in.
Bow Shock Some of the electrons that separate from atoms on the front side of the object would pile up in front of the object, because they're attracted to the increasing positive charge of the object, but heat prevents them from combining with the positive charge. I think the layer of electrons in front are what Charles thinks make the bow shock for meteors and supersonic aircraft etc. (I could find his post on that if I took more time to search for it.)
Airbursts As the object moves through the atmosphere, especially if it's on a shallow entry angle, it's constantly losing electrons. I think the electrons that fall away from the object flash brightly in the wake as they recombine with atoms or protons. As the object loses electrons, the surface as well as toward the center become positive charged and, since like charges repel, the repulsion often eventually overcomes the chemical covalent bonds, and this may occur explosively, resulting in an airburst, or a breakup.
Ground Impacts If the object is large enough to remain partly intact until it reaches the ground, and if it's velocity is still great enough, the impact results in thermonuclear explosion, which produces the unusual formations within craters. The material that explodes is largely plasma and there would be arc discharging just before and during impact, but the discharge apparently would not be the main explosive force involved.
Anotation of Part of Other Thread 1. In this post in another thread http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76195 I asked Charles if he had ideas about meteor impacts being able to trigger earthquakes or vulcanism and what he thought of Thornhill's theory about the Tunguska event being caused by lightning pulverizing a meteor in an airburst.
2. In the next post there at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76229 Charles explained 1. why he thinks craters are caused by thermonuclear explosions from impacts rather than from megalightning; and 2. why meteors might spin from air friction, causing huge magnetic fields, electric current through the core and thus electric discharge airbursts (apparently this was the first time he expressed any ideas on these magnetic field effects).
5. Here http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76338 I asked Charles for details about his crater impact theory and how his theory could produce large craters on small objects, like asteroids etc, as I had previously thought that the lightning impact theory seemed best to explain such things.
6. Next at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76377 Charles said: 1. he was intrigued by some of the possible evidence of lightning-carved features on Mars in the video, The Lightning-Scarred Planet, Mars; 2. Cook's evidence suggested an impact on the ice sheet; 3. a thermonuclear explosion on a small iron asteroid may not blow it apart; and 4. something irrelevant here about compressive ionization in small bodies.
9. Then I asked about meteor shockwaves, Cook's theory about the ice sheet impact and upside-down shatter cones, which Charles answered at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=135#p76555 and said he didn't understand why the second sonic boom heard from aircraft is as loud as the first one.
10. After I asked more about upside-down shatter cones and about a new crater on the Moon compared to Comet Tempel 1 and electrical features of comets, Charles answered at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=135#p76714, discussing underground lightning from impacts, commenting that the Moon crater looked like a fake, saying what seemed right and wrong about Thornhill's comet model with respect to Tempel 1, but I think he didn't give enough consideration to the evidence of electrical erosion on the comet.
Lloyd wrote: What seems most important to explain is why electrostatics is more common (in your view) than is electrodynamics. CC: I don't think that there is a "reason" for this per se — it's just an observation. I got onto this track not by looking explicitly for electrostatics, but in the interest of understanding the electrodynamic assertions. After all, to get a current, you first need a charge separation, so you have to figure out how the necessary force was applied. Once you get the potentials, then you can evaluate the release thereof, in electric currents. So I'm saying that in the Sun, compressive ionization stores the potentials, and these are released as arc discharges, which produce the light that we see. So it's both -statics and -dynamics. By contrast, most EU theory has the -dynamics, but the charge separation mechanism wasn't identified, so they ain't got their -statics on yet. Lloyd wrote: Do you regard the apparent EDM evidence on Mars etc as electrodynamics? CC: The scalloped trenches can't be explained any other way. But that doesn't mean that I understand what could have set up EDM on this kind of scale. Lloyd wrote: Do you think a close approach of another planet would produce such EDM effects?
CC replied that the best candidate for that seemed to be a close encounter with a high-velocity stray planet.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Sparky wrote:
Short-circuiting of the ionosphere and the Earth's surface through the ionized wake and the discharge channels can happen in this case, triggering a discharge of the all-Earth capacitor.
Suggesting that the huge flash may have been an arc to ground, hidden by the ground to bolide fog like glow discharge.
Actually Sparky, I thought about you every time I came across a paper that described the "coincidence" of meteor showers with Sprites activity (that other lightning above the clouds), or describing the cometary/plasma tail connecting the meteor to the ionosphere and discharging to Earth just as you proposed earlier and again. Regarding this event, those webcams footage showing the glow rising from the ground meeting the descending glow of the meteor, I'm still on the fence about those. Was the earth glow simply a reflection of the meteor glow, or was it a type of diffuse connection and discharge (as opposed to a line or tube as in lightning). I came to certain conclusions, but certainly still have a lot of unanswered questions. I was merely sharing my personal view on it. There could very well have been a form of direct discharge between the meteor and the ground, I haven't ruled it out.
First we need a charge separation mechanism. The detached bow shock regime has this as frictional ionization, where the inside is positive ions, with a layer of electrons at the outer edge of the shock front. In that, there isn't going to be a side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) charge separation — it's inside-to-outside. So where do you get the side-to-side (or top-to-bottom) electric field?
That has nothing to do with electricity, except as the heat source. An internal short overheated the hydraulic fluid used to insulate the high-voltage switches inside the transformer, to the point that the hydrostatic pressure caused the failure of the containment. Past that point, it's just a fluid above its flash point that was exposed to air, and erupted in flames. The updraft so created encountered friction on its outside, slowing its ascent, while the interior of the updraft was buffered from such friction. The speed difference induced a standard boundary layer vortex. In the case of a cylindrical updraft, the "boundary layer" wraps all of the way around the cylinder, forming a toroidal vortex. Once the angular momentum is established, the toroidal vortex will generally stay organized, until the hot air has reached its equilibrium level in the atmosphere.
It's just a standard fluid dynamic phenomenon.
