ok....sorry...Hold your horses,------You're reading between the lines too much.
![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
ok....sorry...Hold your horses,------You're reading between the lines too much.
You guys are confusing the hell out of me.viscount aero wrote:I don't think the basics of electricity are hard to understand. I understand it and I'm an artist. You have + and -, anode and cathode, and potential and movement of these charges creates electrical current. Current seeks a balance and will shed charge in order to find this balance. This shedding of potential can take the form of discharges such as lightning. That's the basics of electricity. One doesn't need a degree in something to understand it.CharlesChandler wrote:Vector math isn't the problem -- this is something that most CAD software developers (like myself) are pretty comfortable with.justcurious wrote:And won't get annoyed that he doesn't know the fundamentals of electricity or how to do vector math.As concerns the fundamentals of electricity, my whole problem with "educated" folks is that I'm self-educated, which means that I didn't learn all of the same things, all in the same order. If there is something that I missed, that somebody else learned as a freshman in college, then I must not know anything at all.
And yet this uneducated know-nothing has ongoing correspondences with research scientists who are encouraging him to continue with his work -- how could that be?
So don't dismiss me just yet. There are things that I should know that I don't. Then again, there are things that I shouldn't know that I do. I realize that this makes communicating difficult, but I should like to point out that you can't judge everybody by the highest grade level that they completed, as if it's one-dimensional. Like Sparky said, especially in a multi-disciplinary topic, you're likely to find odd combinations of intelligence and ignorance. To understand plasma, you have to know all disciplines, including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, particle physics, and electromagnetism, to name a few. Nobody is an expert on all of that stuff. The only way to proceed is simply to take as little for granted as possible, and to insist on clear statements of all positions. Expect people to be wrong on a regular basis. This is scientific research. If we already understood it, it wouldn't be research. But we're not going to wait for the experts to work it out, and then we can get it all from a textbook, never needing to risk making fools of ourselves by venturing opinions before the experts weighed in. Rather, the experts aren't competing, because they've locked down on the standard approach (i.e., quantum mechanics, general relativity, and MHD), where the only redeeming value is that the constructs are so obtuse that it's hard to tell that scientists actually don't understand what's going on.
So we're the ones who are pushing the envelope. Lurk & learn if you don't want to risk making a fool of yourself, but this is the frontier, where we keep trying new things until we find what works.
Cheers!
You don't need to opt out due to misunderstandings. The thread is going in a generally focused direction, ie, that of getting to what is behind the events that the vapor trail and sudden magnitude of brightness increases demonstrated. I think a lot of electrical phenomena occurred and it's important to sort it all out because it was largely simultaneous in nature.justcurious wrote:You guys are confusing the hell out of me.viscount aero wrote:I don't think the basics of electricity are hard to understand. I understand it and I'm an artist. You have + and -, anode and cathode, and potential and movement of these charges creates electrical current. Current seeks a balance and will shed charge in order to find this balance. This shedding of potential can take the form of discharges such as lightning. That's the basics of electricity. One doesn't need a degree in something to understand it.CharlesChandler wrote:Vector math isn't the problem -- this is something that most CAD software developers (like myself) are pretty comfortable with.justcurious wrote:And won't get annoyed that he doesn't know the fundamentals of electricity or how to do vector math.As concerns the fundamentals of electricity, my whole problem with "educated" folks is that I'm self-educated, which means that I didn't learn all of the same things, all in the same order. If there is something that I missed, that somebody else learned as a freshman in college, then I must not know anything at all.
And yet this uneducated know-nothing has ongoing correspondences with research scientists who are encouraging him to continue with his work -- how could that be?
So don't dismiss me just yet. There are things that I should know that I don't. Then again, there are things that I shouldn't know that I do. I realize that this makes communicating difficult, but I should like to point out that you can't judge everybody by the highest grade level that they completed, as if it's one-dimensional. Like Sparky said, especially in a multi-disciplinary topic, you're likely to find odd combinations of intelligence and ignorance. To understand plasma, you have to know all disciplines, including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, particle physics, and electromagnetism, to name a few. Nobody is an expert on all of that stuff. The only way to proceed is simply to take as little for granted as possible, and to insist on clear statements of all positions. Expect people to be wrong on a regular basis. This is scientific research. If we already understood it, it wouldn't be research. But we're not going to wait for the experts to work it out, and then we can get it all from a textbook, never needing to risk making fools of ourselves by venturing opinions before the experts weighed in. Rather, the experts aren't competing, because they've locked down on the standard approach (i.e., quantum mechanics, general relativity, and MHD), where the only redeeming value is that the constructs are so obtuse that it's hard to tell that scientists actually don't understand what's going on.
So we're the ones who are pushing the envelope. Lurk & learn if you don't want to risk making a fool of yourself, but this is the frontier, where we keep trying new things until we find what works.
Cheers!
I am not judging anybody, I just made false assumptions that Charles was in some sort of formal science environment due to his dropping references to a lot of fancy articles and research papers. I even stated that I now have more respect for Charles, for someone with only a GED and a high speed connection I am really impressed.
I also made the false assumption that people debating the physical phenomena surrounding the meteor event in Russia had some sort of scientific or engineering background. Knowing people's level of knowledge is important for better communication IMO. When I learned that you are an illustrator, it all of a sudden made sense to me that the vector math, cross products and so on were alien concepts to you. It's not an insult or a judgement, simply a fact that will help me better communicate.
I NEVER said that someone "needs" a degree to understand any of this, self-learning is just as valid. In fact that is what I am doing.
And no, you don't need a degree to understand electricity, but you need to know more than just charging and discharging that is for sure. When I don't know a topic very well, I have no problem admitting it. That is why I am not prepared (yet) to casually advance/promote my pet theories and speculations, I realize that I need to add quite a bit more to my toolkit.
You can't teach a man who thinks he already knows everything.
Anyways, this thread is all over the place and I keep getting misunderstood. I'm opting out.
I totally agree. I'm of the opinion at this point that it wasn't the flashes that left the trails. Rather, the process that left the trails terminated catastrophically, issuing the flashes. The first time it did this (i.e., frame #630, time 31:01.5), the whole thing got scaled way down, from the large to the small twin trails. The second time it did this (i.e., frame #673, time 31:03.0), the twin trails ceased to exist. A couple of remnants of the bolide continued on, the largest of which becoming visible in frame #725, time 31:05.0. But at that point, the bolide no longer had the where-with-all to flash and to leave a trail. So I'm not thinking of the flaming trails as part of the explosions per se. Rather, whatever left the trails also caused the explosions.viscount aero wrote:The flashes and their corresponding locations within the vapor trail appear counter-intuitive.
At first I didn't understand how you could have gotten that impression. Then I got to thinking that it was because of the way I (sometimes) integrate fluid dynamics and electromagnetism. Yet I consider MHD to be fighting words!justcurious wrote:I was under the impression that Charles was some sort of Big Banger doing a Masters in "magnetic reconnection" LOL.
Oh, I didn't see that. I thought that fireballs were generally steady-state -- my bad.justcurious wrote:I did mention earlier that a lot of the footage of fiereballs out on the net shows flaring and also flashing (like a camera flash).
That's excellent. Thanks for your info indeedjustcurious wrote:I decided to check out how camera flashes produce their bright light for the hell of it and landed on this page: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/camera-flash1.htm
Surprise surprise, it's plasma
A typical camera flash tube, removed from its housing, looks like a miniature neon light.
I think the bright flash is the same as that produced by lightning. It's the same color, and they happen under the same gas/air environments, low altitude atmosphere. Same air, same color, already proven that plasma can produce these kinds of flashes (camera flashes). It's starting to get simpler and make more sense now. The flashing was puzzling me a bit.
I kept pondering on the twin smoke trails, contemplating why they look the same if one was made of electrons and the other of ions, until I saw this video. Silly me, the charged particles only make up a small percentage of a plasma. As we can see in the video, negatively or positively charged smoke looks the same.justcurious wrote:Good video of how fire behaves under an electric field:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... _Llr8&NR=1
At 1:50 minutes, notice that when the flame goes out, we can see the smoke is also ionized, you can have Birkeland currents of smoke!
Yes that's a very salient video to watch. In the case of the meteor its presence (friction) created the anode and cathode in the air as it ionized the atmosphere. The dual smoke columns became the fossil remains of the anode/cathode. This is also demonstrated in the rail gun experiment. No matter how you slice it this was an electrical event. It had to be as the ionization principle of a meteor's visible train has been known for decades. But somehow full explanation for such events goes suspiciously unmentioned in press releases and science classes. Astronomy curricula should defer to the railgun and candle videos, not icy dirtball or slow nebular collapse videos.justcurious wrote:I kept pondering on the twin smoke trails, contemplating why they look the same if one was made of electrons and the other of ions, until I saw this video. Silly me, the charged particles only make up a small percentage of a plasma. As we can see in the video, negatively or positively charged smoke looks the same.justcurious wrote:Good video of how fire behaves under an electric field:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... _Llr8&NR=1
At 1:50 minutes, notice that when the flame goes out, we can see the smoke is also ionized, you can have Birkeland currents of smoke!
So in conclusion, the twin trails behind the meteor are negatively and positively. This is the reason there are two, and this is the reason their corkscrews or helical structures twist in opposite directions. It was my first hunch, but this little video helped confirm it.
I haven't observed this, but a hypersonic bolide moving through air that varied in density (even slightly) would certainly produce a wavering shock front. Tell me which frames illustrate this, and I'll take a look.Sparky wrote:I noticed that the bolide appeared to be "boiling". Does that make sense with your model?
What created the anode on one side of the bolide, and the cathode on the other?justcurious wrote:The twin trails behind the meteor are negatively and positively [charged].
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".CharlesChandler wrote:What created the anode on one side of the bolide, and the cathode on the other?justcurious wrote:The twin trails behind the meteor are negatively and positively [charged].
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.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".CharlesChandler wrote:What created the anode on one side of the bolide, and the cathode on the other?justcurious wrote:The twin trails behind the meteor are negatively and positively [charged].
That's highly unlikely.Beata-at-home wrote:I am late jumping in on this thread, but have briefly read through the posts here. Is the word "missile" taboo here,or did I misunderstand your communications about it? There has been speculation about the nature of the projectile.
http://www.techtodayshow.com/?p=910
Doesn't it make a difference in the analysis if the projectile had originated from within Earth's atmosphere? Or would that kind of missile suggested in above site be shot out of the atmosphere before re-entry?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest