Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

[viscount aero]

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.

It's not your fault per se, it is a function of articulating something abstract. I find that most scientific diagrams are incomprehensible, flat, non-real, vague, opaque. Half of the problem with scientific treatises is that they fail to articulate their ideas clearly when using illustrations. It's like trying to read bad signage. And the diagrams are often created only for the one who wrote the paper.

Hence, the illustrations provided do not help whatsoever but confuse. Charles' diagrams, however, are among the clearest I've ever seen which is why I commended him with high praises several pages ago. Even if what he describes isn't "real" it is highly informative to the reader--at any level--what he means.

I'm trying to coax out of you a line of descriptions that could lead to such a diagram. Charles can do it. But he's not in agreement or in apparent synch with your reasoning. So this is very frustrating.

Indeed, between us, the talent exists here to create it. It's a matter of conveying the ideas. For example, WTF is "b field"? To a layman that means nothing. And between the rails--the + and - directions of current flow: Ok I get that part but how/where is the force being exerted as result of that opposing electrical charge direction? The first diagram (that I have reposted here) almost describes it but falls short and vague. For example why is the projectile's arrow/vector perpendicular to the green vector line of force? That makes no sense to me. It ought to be traveling along the vector of force, not perpendicular to it.

How/where does the force originate from--from between the rails? And if so, why is it in one direction as indicated when the + and - charges on each rail are opposed in their direction of flow? And WTF does the f, b, i triangular diagram mean?

Please clarify.

[Sparky]

sorry to have caused confusion....I grabbed this image from another thread, just to show how plasma magnetic fields interact.


As for bow shock....the solar wind has a magnetic field which I think impinges on the earth's magnetosphere..nasa says it's the solar wind particles that displaces the magnetosphere.

[viscount aero]

I understood generally the liney looking contour diagrams that attempt to visualize mag fields (which are more like bubbles or envelopes and not linear onion-like structures) even though they do not at all really tell the viewer what is going in with the meteor and it's explosive/ionized path to destruction.

I've seen bow shock illustrations for years. But with that: wouldn't that diagram be adaptable, generally, to the meteors path and interaction with the air? Wouldn't the phenomena be scalable? It's a place to start to then conceptualize a new diagram that I am tempted to create.

[CharlesChandler]

Sorry -- I forgot to describe the graphic that I posted. That's looking down the rails, with the circular magnetic fields around the opposing electric currents. I used Paul Falstad's magnetostatics simulator for this (for the first time ).

[justcurious]

Hence, the illustrations provided do not help whatsoever but confuse. Charles' diagrams, however, are among the clearest I've ever seen which is why I commended him with high praises several pages ago. Even if what he describes isn't "real" it is highly informative to the reader--at any level--what he means.

Agreed 100%, visuals are a great way to communicate abstract ideas. I also finally understood what Charles meant thanks to his diagrams.

For example, WTF is "b field"?

In short, it means the magnetic field which is usually denoted by B (magnetic field strength) in mathematical equations. But to make matters more confusing it can also be represented by H (more to do with permanent magnets). Without getting into the details, let's just say the B field is the magnetic field. The magnetic field produced by a current is shown below:



So if you use the right hand rule, you can see that on the plane between the rails (long conducting wires), the magnetic field would be pointing upwards based on the circular direction of the magnetic field caused by the two currents in the rails.

Here is that railgun diagram again:

And between the rails--the + and - directions of current flow: Ok I get that part but how/where is the force being exerted as result of that opposing electrical charge direction?

+ and - denote the direction of the current. On rail has a current going in one direction, and the other has current flowing in the opposite direction. If you point your thumb on the direction of the current, the magnetic filed is circular around the wire/rails n the direction pointed to by your fingers. If you do this you will notice that the magnetic field lines produced by the opposing currents cross the plane between the rails from the bottom up.

Now we get to the force exerted on the projectile. The projectile in the diagram is a conducting wire which is perpendicular to the two rails, with the current going from left to right. The force exerted on a conducting wire in the presence of a magnetic field is denoted by yet another formula which makes use of another right hand rule.
Keep in mind that this 3rd current carrying wire which we call the projectile is in the presence of a magnetic field created by the rails as described above. So the railgun diagram shows the projectile as having a current in the direction of the red arrow (left to right), in the presence of a magnetic field pointing up. With that in mind, here is a diagram demonstrating the right hand rule used to determine the direction of the force on a current carrying wire in the presence of a magnetic field:

For example why is the projectile's arrow/vector perpendicular to the green vector line of force? That makes no sense to me. It ought to be travelling along the vector of force, not perpendicular to it.

The red arrow is the direction of the current.
The green arrow is the direction of the force exerted on the projectile. The projectile moves in the direction of the green arrow. The diagram uses a wire instead of something that looks more like a cannonball or rocket in order to demonstrate the physical principles involved. The same principles underlying electric motors or generators, and in general, the conversion of electrical to mechanical energy and vice-versa.

How/where does the force originate from--from between the rails? And if so, why is it in one direction as indicated when the + and - charges on each rail are opposed in their direction of flow? And WTF does the f, b, i triangular diagram mean?

Please clarify.

So the force originates from the fact that a current carrying wire in the presence of a magnetic field will have a force exerted on it. This is the Lorentz force. the i, b and f represent the directions of the current (i), magnetic field (b) and force (f). as you can see, they are all perpendicular to each other. The more perpendicular the current and the magnetic field, the stronger the force, and the force is perpendicular to both the current and magnetic fields. It's counter-intuitive but that's the way it is, I didn't make it up I promise! It's what is called the cross product. You can check all this out in the Essential Guide annex I and II. This cross product thing has a lot of implications. A moving charge that suddenly enters a magnetic field perpendicular to it will start changing directions and curving due to this "sideways" force and in many cases circling. For example when I look at those solar flares and so called magnetic lines, my first thought is that the magnetic field is actually perpendicular to those so-called "magnetic loops".

The most simplified version of the Lorents force law of a cuirrent carrying wire in the presnce of a magnetic field:

I is the current, the curly L is the length of the wire, and B is the magnetic field strength.
F is a cross product of I and B (the three arrows again).

Here is a better diagram of the railgun principle where we can at least see the magnetic field lines a bit more clearly (cross product of b and i cause f). I got it from this web page http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm



I tried to simplify, but I have a feeling I probably confused the hell out of you even more.

[justcurious]

As for bow shock....the solar wind has a magnetic field which I think impinges on the earth's magnetosphere..nasa says it's the solar wind particles that displaces the magnetosphere.

It's charged particles trying to penetrate the Earth's magnetosphere but are being pushed asside. I'm sure it's more complex than that but I think this is a good simple explanation. It's not one magneticv field colliding with another magnetic field, but rather charged particles (plasma from the sun, or solar wind) interacting with the magnetosphere. If I'm not mistaken, this causes an electric sheet (ie the bow shock). It's well explained in the Essential Guide, with some diagrams of the Earth's magnetosphere.

[justcurious]

Sorry -- I forgot to describe the graphic that I posted. That's looking down the rails, with the circular magnetic fields around the opposing electric currents. I used Paul Falstad's magnetostatics simulator for this (for the first time ).

Not familiar with it. But I can tell you that there is a magnetic field pointing up at both rails, it is the magnetic field created by the opposing wire. As per the right hand rule, there is also a force exerted on the rails pushing them away from each-other, that's why they have to be built very tough and strong not to break apart.

[viscount aero]

Hence, the illustrations provided do not help whatsoever but confuse. Charles' diagrams, however, are among the clearest I've ever seen which is why I commended him with high praises several pages ago. Even if what he describes isn't "real" it is highly informative to the reader--at any level--what he means.

Agreed 100%, visuals are a great way to communicate abstract ideas. I also finally understood what Charles meant thanks to his diagrams.

For example, WTF is "b field"?

Thanks for that post; I will read it later when i have time. But see how the first railgun diagram is stupid and has the arrow for the projectile going perpendicular to the green vector for force? Whereas your new diagram of the same setup clarifies that the red arrow across the rails is the current flow--not the projectile's direction. Scientific diagrams are fraught with these confusing diagrams that assumes the viewer "gets it." Most of these people creating the diagrams are scientific/math geeks with no human skills whatsoever, lost in their own anti-social echo chambers of abstract concepts and ideas. To them, you're just supposed to "get it" and if you don't then tough sh2t for you

[CharlesChandler]

Most of these people creating the diagrams are scientific/math geeks with no human skills whatsoever, lost in their own anti-social echo chambers of abstract concepts and ideas. To them, you're just supposed to "get it" and if you don't then tough sh2t for you

One of these days, we should discuss the possibility of you illustrating some of the work that I've done. Over the years, I've learned that excellent writing and illustration are crucial, and not just for the reader, but for the author as well. If the editors and/or illustrators are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what's going on, it's probably because the author hasn't quite figured out what's going on either! Anyway, I'm OK with CAD drawings, but I truly don't have any artistic talent, so the next step for me will be to collaborate with an illustrator. Send me a PM if you're interested. The work can be found at: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031. There's a lot of it, but please, if you find something that doesn't make sense, let me know, since that represents an opportunity for progress.

[viscount aero]

PM sent. Here are my online portfolios:
(sorry thunderbolts community that I'm veering off-topic but only for a moment )

storyboards:
http://www.stage32.com/profile/75224/photos

Illustration:
(click the thumbnails to expand the views)
http://www.behance.net/chadglass

[viscount aero]

Map of meteor's path and size comparison to Tunguska meteor:

from:
http://www.visualnews.com/2013/02/18/vi ... ite-blast/

[Sparky]

Tunguska meteor was smaller! And did much more damage?!

[viscount aero]

Tunguska meteor was smaller! And did much more damage?!

No, look at the diagram again.

[Sparky]

I misread.got out the magnifier glass so I could see.

[viscount aero]

I misread.got out the magnifier glass so I could see.

You are forgiven, my brother