CERN Norway What is happening?

[RainmanTime]

RMT re-question 1 : what diameter do you suppose the spiral is (on a 2d plane, as seem from norway)?

I'd say it is at least 20,000 feet tall in diameter. But again, without knowing the range, it could be as large as 60,000 feet if it is higher in atmosphere than it appears.

re-q 2 : you say the afterburn of the missile is still exerting force on the sun-illuminated spirals and that is the reason the black hole increaes in size.

I think you are getting confused about what I am saying. What I am saying is that the velocity of the missile moving through the fluid (air) is creating a spiraling effect in the fluid itself. You know how when you stir your coffe you create a vortex spiral in that fluid? Well, the atmosphere is a fluid too! Gases and liquids both create wakes behind objects moving through them with any appreciable velocity.

Forget whether the missile is expelling any mass at all. It is creating those spirals in the air whether there is anything being ejected or not, right? As the missile moves through the fluid, and in its gyrating (failed) flight path, it creates this spiral pattern in the flowfield behind it...just as a boat on a lake leaves a wake. But in this case it is in the 3-D atmosphere, and it creates a spiral-conical formation.

Now once you understand that this is going on continuously as the vehicle flies, "turn on" the main rocket exhaust early in the sequence. It begins to create the illuminated spiral and that illuminated spiral grows outward as time passes. The key is that the mass ejected from the rocket motor is what the sunlight can illuminate, causing you to see the spiral forming in the fluid behind the missile.

Now think about the rocket stage finally burning out so that all that matter coming out of the nozzle stops. No more matter coming out to be illuminated, no more illumination. the visual of the spiral stops. but the missile is still moving forwar thru the fluid...it is still creating that spiral action. And the earlier spiral motion continues to make the illuminated spiral expand. The non-illuminated spiral is also expanding...which is why the area you call the "black hole" also expands in your view of it.

But it seems to me that the spirals, being 3d and a missile that is likely traveling Mach 2-3 or more would be spread out over a distance of miles.

yes? And.....? In fact, as I say above, the diameter of that spiral is easily at least 20,000 feet (about 4 miles), but could be larger. I do not see what that has to do with the fluid dynamic explanation of what is going on. What are you implying by this?

So how could any sort of aerodynamic affect from a missile miles away snuff out the illuminated spirals from such a distance.

It is not "snuffing out" the illuminated spirals. Those illuminated spirals are expanding outward due to the vorticity (swirling motion) of the flow induced by the missile. The spirals contain mass ejecta from the rocket motor. That mass ejecta is what is being illuminated. When the motor shuts down the swirling action of the rocket keeps going, and the whole swirl keeps on expanding. But without mass ejecta (motor is off) you cannot see the swirling action. All you see is darkness. That darkness is because the light is shining through the clear air that is swirling around (and expanding). The dark hole grows just like whole illuminated spiral grows, at a constant rate that is propotional to the missile's velocity through the air.

And likewise, the increasing size of the hole seems somewhat linear in nature from a 2d vantage point (its size increases regularly).

Yes, it is a big swirling motion caused by the missile. the parts you see illuminated have rocket motor mass ejecta. the parts you cannot see do not, but they are still swirling in the "eye" of the vortex. The APEX of the vortex is at the missile itself. It is the SOURCE of the vortex.

If somehow what you say is true that the missile somehow darkened the spiral and created the effect of the black hole

No. You are, indeed, misunderstanding what I am saying. The missile did not exert a force to darken the spiral. The missile is STILL (and always) creating a spiral. You just cannot see that spiral once the rocket motor stops spitting mass out its ass. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But the air in that dark hole area is still swirling...I guarantee it.

then that means that the force doing so would have had to increase in acceleration to make the conical spiral appear to widen into a hole in a uniform speed as opposed to slowing down greatly with the distance the 3d spiral would have covered.

The air is being accelerated in the vicinity of the body, away from the body. That imparts an initial "delta velocity" to the air, and in a swirling motion. You do not need any further acceleration for the spiral to continue to grow. It is growing at a certain velocity, and that velocity is slower at the outside edge of the ring than it is on the inner part of the conical spiral.

I understand you are a man of science and logic, but I feel this is one of those times the truth is staring you in the face and you don't believe it because you are so trained not to.

And what, specifically and explicitly, do you believe that "truth" to be? Let me tell you, I know the truth about what I am seeing. Much moreso than what you might THINK the truth is. This is simple fluid dynamics of vorticity. I am surprised that you claim to be educated in this stuff and you do not understand that exactly what I am saying is true. Can you share with us exactly what your educational CV is? Where did you study aerodynamics and fluids? What program? Because any fluid mechanics course in any engineering curriculum covers vorticity. Ever heard of the Navier-Stokes differential equations for fluids? There is a rotational component in these equations that deals with 3-D flowfield vorticity. It is a vector-valued function that we call the "curl of the velocity vector".

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Yes, bullets are spin-stabilized projectiles, and as such the aerodynamic flow patterns they create as they move through the air are even more rotational (i.e. higher vorticity) than missiles that may not roll at all. Good stuff, Kerr.

Here is a good graphic that shows vortex creation from aircraft wingtips and how they grow in size as you move behind the airplane.

RMT

 

[paladius]

RMT, I still don;t understand how the illuminated spiral, whose size by your estimate is 20,000 to 60,000 feet (4-12 miles!) in diameter can be non-illuminated by a missile vortex over the period of 3-4 seconds. That would mean the missile vortex is spreading with great power, and if I remember correctly, you stated something about inverse squared expansion blah blah and wouldn't that mean that the missile vortex would loose the vast majority of its force over the distance of 4 miles?

I follow along that the spiral shape could be created by a missile, but I have yet to understand the the speed at which the spiral de-illuminated.

 

[RainmanTime]

Paladius,

Before I continue to relate the facts of fluid dynamics in response to your questions, I feel it might be time for you to come clean on some things. Several times, in various threads around here, you have told us of your alleged education and studies. One time I think you even told us you worked for NASA as a grad student. You seemed to imply that you have fairly high knowledge of many of these engineeering topics. Now, that stuff is not all true, now is it? Because if it were true, you would not only understand what I am saying, but you would remember what I said (instead of what we see in your quote below), because you would have actually learned about it. It is OK to admit when you don't know something. However, building a false view of your level of education in some subjects in the minds of others (often to get them to believe your conspiracy take on things) is not always such a good idea... because you can get caught and end up looking not quite as educated as you wanted to portray yourself.

First:

whose size by your estimate is 20,000 to 60,000 feet (4-12 miles!) in diameter

I have already mentioned that my estimate could be in error (in either direction). My estimate is from the following still photograph:

Now that looks pretty big in this photo. But as I mentioned, I do not know the range to the object in any of these photos or videos, and that plays a big part in estimating its size. When you watch one of the videos that has the spiraling action (and resulting dark hole generation), such as at he following link, one could estimate that the size of the spiral shown in this video is much smaller than that seen above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax2ITilnHlc

Watching those videos gives a different impression on size than the still shown above, yes? So...I am just clearing up that my estimate could be wrong...but given how high I know that missile to be, I am still standing by it as a estimate of the size of the LARGER spiral shown in the above still photograph. The sensitivty of the video camera used in the videos above is clearly not as sensitive as the camera that took the still photo. And we also see in the video that the person shooting it had to ZOOM IN quite a bit. So I would ask you to be clear about which one you are referring to. That said, let's move on:

I still don;t understand how the illuminated spiral, whose size by your estimate is 20,000 to 60,000 feet (4-12 miles!) in diameter can be non-illuminated by a missile vortex over the period of 3-4 seconds.

I will try to help you understand. Looking at the videos above (not the still) you should be able to see that the videos were taken from a place and at a direction where there was a LOT less solar illumination of the spiral. Again, this could be explained by the sensitivity of the cameras involved and the light setting used for a photo as compared to that used in the video. But my point here is that the illumination shown in the video is chiefly and primarily coming from the light emitted by the rocket motor as it is burning. Agreed?

So....as the rocket motor burns it ejects matter in its plume and the light from its combustion is illuminating the spiral of rocket exhaust that it is leaving behind it, yes? Now turn out the light (the rocket motor burns out). The creation of the vorticity spiral, which is the fluid dynamic effect, is STILL going on and at the same rate as before the light was turned out. But the trail (which is still spreading out like a corkscrew) is not illuminated. So the corkscrew is still expanding, but it is expanding in black now, and all the illumination that is left are those bits on the edge of the spiral that have spread out far enough to catch some illumination from the sun.

That would mean the missile vortex is spreading with great power, and if I remember correctly, you stated something about inverse squared expansion blah blah and wouldn't that mean that the missile vortex would loose the vast majority of its force over the distance of 4 miles?

Here is the problem: You do NOT remember correctly. You remembered incorrectly. And you did not go back to review exactly what I did say. I did not say "inverse squared". Rather, I said "squared". "Inverse squared" (of velocity, which is the quantity that is squared in dynamic pressure) would put it in the denominator, and that would make the quantity get smaller and smaller. Instead, I was referring to the SQUARED law of dynamic pressure. And this equation has two quantities in it that will (hopefully) help you understand what you are either missing or taking for granted that you know what is going on. Here is the equation for dynamic pressure:

Dynamic Pressure = (1/2)*air density*airspeed^2

The dynamic pressure around a moving aerospace vehicle is the "power" that you discuss in your quote above. Dynamic pressure is responsible for moving the spiral outwards. So you say the "missile vortex is spreading with great power", which is correct. Because the airspeed is very VERY high! It is going SEVERAL times Mach given the altitude it is at in its third stage burn, right? Airspeed squared determines how high the forcing pressure (dynamic pressure) is that is driving the spiral.

But now you seem to assume that it needs "great power" to push the darkening spiral out so quickly. The only reason I can assume you think this is because you are thinking about the density of air as if it were the same, relatively high-density air, that we breath down here in the troposphere. But up where that rocket is traveling, the air density has fallen off CONSIDERABLY from the air density you know and love down here.

The density of the air is what provides the resistance to motion of the spiral. If that spiral were being created down here in the thick air of the troposphere, you are right there is no way it could create a spiral miles in diameter in a matter of 3 seconds or so. (The missile would also be moving at a much slower airspeed if it were down here in the troposphere too, thus reducing the dynamic pressure it could use to drive the spiral). However, this missile is traveling in the air that is several hundreds of thousand feet above sea level. The missile is well outside the stratosphere, probably outside the mesosphere, and maybe even approaching or crossing into the ionosphere. The density of air is SO LOW at that height, and the airspeed of the missile is SO HIGH at this point in its flight, that the resistance of air to speeds that high is practically nothing. What I am pointing out to you is a fact of fluid dynamics: As fluid density goes down, you need less forcing "power" (pressure) to cause the spiral to expand. With that low density, there is virtually no air resistance to the spiral's expansion. So yes, it can and DOES expand very, very quickly as a combination of VERY high airspeed and VERY low air density.

RMT

 

[paladius]

rmt, i agree that the event is similar in looks to a failed missile or a missile w/ anti-anti-missile trajectory. However, the appearance of the black hole and de-illumination of spiral do not match up with typical physics of fluid dynamics, light propagation, or atmospheric acoustics.

If, as you say, the spiral was illuminated by sunshine after the missile engine burned out, then the illumination should have lasted longer than a few seconds. Furthermore, any fading of the spiral, if it was illuminated by the sun, would have been in a wanning or waxing fashion, similar to the phases of the moon.

The fact that this spiral de-illuminated over the period of a few seconds (presumably traveling 4-10 miles) and that its blackness came from the center and spread out, proves that the sun was not the illuminating factor. And if the afterburn, was the illuminating factor, then the spiral would have de-illuminated at the speed of light, not the much slower few seconds.

Yes, I studied aerodynamics for a bit at Berkeley, no, I'm not an expert, hence why I am asking for reason on this topic. And my prior research was for a NASA lunar base and some of the life-systems, structural components, and logistics of construction phasing for such. Again, that doesn't make me an expert in missile failures, but it does give me a rounded background in many fields. I was launching custom Estes rockets when I was 10 and making nitroglycerin and nitrogen tri-iodide when I was 14, but that doesn't make me an expert in missile failures either. I am not here to debate my academical or experiential merits. All I am doing here is asking for a logical and scientifically sound explanation for the spiral turning into a black hole. So far, you have not yet given me one. And RMT, I don't expect you to, and nor should you feel obligated. I am just trying to start a conversation about a very strange event that took place recently. You, however, for some reason, seem bent on making sure we all know exactly what you think it was (and may indeed be). I just want to be 100% sure what you think is the truth.

 

[Darby]

Here is the equation for dynamic pressure:

Dynamic Pressure = (1/2)*air density*airspeed^2

An equation that everyone should be somewhat familiar with if they just slow down, take a look at it and parse it out. Hmmm....

Funny how those danged physicists can take one "simple" equation

K(E)=1/2 mv^2

and properly apply it to all sorts of physical situations.

 

[paladius]

russia 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMPnokYQTT8

china, unknown date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixLE3iuszbU

 

[KerrTexas]

Cool Videos. Good job on finding them.

Maybe because of the hootch I was sippin', I had a problem understanding the guy in the 2nd link. Sounded all Chinese to me.

As far as the why these sprials were created, hasnt changed any. As a matter of fact, kind of reinforces the idear that them Russian's got themselves sum missle problems.

 

[RainmanTime]

As far as the why these sprials were created, hasnt changed any. As a matter of fact, kind of reinforces the idear that them Russian's got themselves sum missle problems.

Yes, indeed. I remember reading that this particular Russian missile has been under development for several years, and has had at least 5 launches with control failures. The earlier failures were with the first and second stage, and these videos in Russia/2007 and China both look like they are earlier stage (lower in alt) failures.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

However, the appearance of the black hole and de-illumination of spiral do not match up with typical physics of fluid dynamics, light propagation, or atmospheric acoustics.

They most certainly do. You just refuse to accept that they do. And acoustics have nothing to do with this particular situation. But this is most definitely a classic case of a vortex generator, something which is studied in Newtonian rotational flows. They are extremely important in jet engines for fuel mixing post-compression, in fact.

If, as you say, the spiral was illuminated by sunshine after the missile engine burned out, then the illumination should have lasted longer than a few seconds.

It depends on the angle from which a photo/video was taken. That is the optics part. And clearly in the still photo I posted above, the illumination lasted for a LONG time. That person was photographing from a clearly different vantage point than the video I referenced.

Furthermore, any fading of the spiral, if it was illuminated by the sun, would have been in a wanning or waxing fashion, similar to the phases of the moon.

You still are not really "getting" it. The spiral was constantly expanding outward from before the black hole appeared until well after. The difference was there was no mass ejecta when the motor turned off...nothing to BE illuminated. But the fluid dynamic pattern of the growing spiral was still churning the air in the vortex pattern. That is PRECISELY why the dark hole grows over time. This type of effect is modeled all the time in CFD codes. It is one of many fundamental flow visualization experments we do with students when they take their supersonic flow (gas dynamics) labs in our Cal Poly supersonic wind tunnel.

The fact that this spiral de-illuminated over the period of a few seconds (presumably traveling 4-10 miles) and that its blackness came from the center and spread out, proves that the sun was not the illuminating factor. And if the afterburn, was the illuminating factor, then the spiral would have de-illuminated at the speed of light, not the much slower few seconds.

I am sorry. You are simply incorrect in that assessment. The spiral "de-illuminated" (a technically incorrect term) at the exact same rate that the spiral was growing outward before the motor shut off. From the time the motor first quit, it TOOK TIME for the vortex flow that HAD mass ejecta in it to swirl outward in the spiral. It continued to swirl outward, as did the rest of the vortex that continued to be shed off the missile AFTER the rocket motor shut off. The difference was, that air did NOT have the particulate matter from the rocket motor exhaust. But it would swirl outward and replace the illuminated mass ejecta at the same rate.

Again, that doesn't make me an expert in missile failures, but it does give me a rounded background in many fields.

Your knowledge of time-varying 3-D rotational flows is poor. It is below what an undergrad junior engineering student knows, that is for sure. What were you bachelor's and master's degrees in? Because ALL engineering majors must take an upper division fluid mechanics class, and that means Navier-Stokes.

All I am doing here is asking for a logical and scientifically sound explanation for the spiral turning into a black hole. So far, you have not yet given me one.

So far, I most certainly have. You simply either refuse to accept it, or you refuse to do a little homework and study/model the vorticity term in Navier-Stokes equations. Vorticity is a massive area of study, not just for missile flowfield dynamics, but for entire weather pattern studies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOIuUEMKh_g

http://www.stormjunkie.com/training/models/fsu_models/fsu_850vort/fsu_850vort.html

I just want to be 100% sure what you think is the truth.

That is a commendable position to take. But you seem to think what I am telling you is not true, and are dismissing it without even looking into it in detail. And you are free to do that. But that is not a very scientific way to go about things. But then again, your tendency to think conspiracy over nature, in many things, does not really portray the kind of scientific approach one would expect of someone who positions themselves as highly educated in kinematics.

Vorticity is a property of the flow of any fluid and moving fluids acquire properties that allow an engineer to describe that particular flow in greater detail. It is important to recognize that mere motion alone does not guarantee that the air or any fluid has vorticity. Vorticity is one of four important quantities that define the kinematic properties of any fluid flow. The Navier-Stokes equations are the foundation of fluid mechanics, and Stokes' theorem is used in nearly every branch of mechanics as well as electromagnetics. Stokes' Theorem also plays a vital role in many secondary theorems such as those pertaining to vorticity and circulation.

Have fun on your quest... but don't shut your mind to something that is well-described by science just because you would rather believe something else.
RMT

 

[Darby]

So far, I most certainly have. You simply either refuse to accept it, or you refuse to do a little homework and study/model the vorticity term in Navier-Stokes equations. Vorticity is a massive area of study, not just for missile flowfield dynamics, but for entire weather pattern studies...

And it's not as if this is new information to study. Navier and Stokes did their experimental studies before the Wright Brothers even flew at Kitty Hawk. Stokes died in 1903.

William Lanchester published his studies of wing-tip vortices in 1907 (Aeronautics) and drew some pretty pitcures illustrating wing-tip vortices.

Karaman, Handley-Page, Prandtl, etc. in the 1920's and 1930's published extensively on the subject. Hell, even Lord Rayleigh published a study in the late 1870's on the same subject.

Ray, some folks want to beat a dead horse "to death" without even glancing at the known and well verified science behind fluid dynamics for no other reason than to make a contrarian statement "just cuz".

 

[RainmanTime]

Darby,

Ray, some folks want to beat a dead horse "to death" without even glancing at the known and well verified science behind fluid dynamics for no other reason than to make a contrarian statement "just cuz".

I most certainly agree, Darby... but I have to ask: Why are you bringing Al Gore into this discussion?

Al Gore has (more) problems with science!

But seriously... yes, I know what paladius is doing. But with each new post, there is at least one lurker out there who is learning and PMing me with questions about Navier-Stokes. I think (not sure) it is one of my students from this past quarter's ARO 101 class. She will learn all about it once she gets to ARO 301 (our fluid dynamics course), but it is heartening to see her asking questions and getting interested now.

MT

 

[paladius]

Ahh, I understand now. See that wasn't so hard. Although you don't have to insult me. And what is the proper term for the "de-illumination"? I think atm0ospheric acoustic principles can help to explain what is happening, as there are some rather interesting anomalies that can occur with sound vacuums/pockets in the atmosphere. I was wondering if some of these affects could be translated to fluid dynamics at the speeds exhaust or what ever was being ejected and maybe those effects could help explain what we were seeing. As far as my education goes, maybe I have a Masters of the Obvious and a PHD in Psychology, from world class institutions, of course.

 

[Twighlight]

All I am doing here is asking for a logical and scientifically sound explanation for the spiral turning into a black hole. So far, you have not yet given me one.

Mmm....I finally get to post a post starting with the words " It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out....."

Well....it doesn't. The spiral is naturally expanding all the time. So when the rocket runs out of fuel, what is left of the spiral will dissipate away from the rocket exactly as seen. It's an effect no different to a smoke ring.

What I'd like, though, is an explanation of why the primary rocket trail was blue/green in colour. That does seem rather unusual.

 

[RainmanTime]

What I'd like, though, is an explanation of why the primary rocket trail was blue/green in colour. That does seem rather unusual.

Fairly elementary: One of the most popular compounds in a solid rocket motor is aluminum perchlorate. After combustion the byproduct compound is aluminum oxide, which can fluoresce with a blueish-green color under the right external illumination conditions.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/44611343u89v1624/

<font color="red"> "The luminescence spectra of aluminum oxide with an ordered system of through pores have been studied. The diameter and density of pores were ~50 nm and 1.2 × 10^10 cm, respectively. <font color="blue">Amorphous aluminum oxide formed by anodization of aluminum foil in an oxalic acid electrolyte shows intense luminescence in the blue spectral region.[/COLOR]" [/COLOR]

RMT

 

[paladius]

NO, I change my mind. I don;t think it could be a rocket. The spiral exhaust of a rocket could not possibly be that large in diameter. The space shuttle does not create a plume that large, so why would a rocket. (RMT, I know, in part I am guilty of pushing your buttons, but you must admit, you do get all fired up). Now tell me about the size of the spiral in relation to exhaust vortexes at mid level altitudes. ...

 

[RainmanTime]

(RMT, I know, in part I am guilty of pushing your buttons, but you must admit, you do get all fired up).

I am a teacher of technical subjects. It is my job to correct errant thinking about technical subjects. Not sure why you would be surprised by that.

NO, I change my mind. I don;t think it could be a rocket. The spiral exhaust of a rocket could not possibly be that large in diameter. The space shuttle does not create a plume that large, so why would a rocket.

Do you really want me to show you all the reasons why this is erroneous thinking and why the Shuttle analogy is inappropriate? You should be able to figure it out yourself just from the facts I have provided earlier in this thread. But you let me know if you really want to be corrected again, and I will be happy to oblige.

RMT

 

[paladius]

no, that's ok, i know the shuttle analogy was piss-poor, but I still don;t see how a missile spiral could get that large. Besides that, over the altitude that the spiral spanned (top to bottom) there should have been some shear unless the air was very calm.

 

[KerrTexas]

A Shadowgraph of a .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 Nato) FMJ bullet traveling at approximately 2800 ft/s (850 m/s).

In the above Shadowgraph of the .308 Bullet, you can see the flow around the bullet. What is easily seen is the increasing size of the flow of whatever the bullet was shot through. What can't be seen is the fact that this bullet is in a cycle of spin.

If you were looking at this Shadowgraph from behind, instead of from the side, I wouldnt be all that surprised if the image comes dern close to the spiral as seen from a missle that is in a spin, whatever the cause of the spin might be.

In the Shadowgraph, the bullet is following a relatively normal trajectory. Imagine if the .308 Bullet begins to wobble or is not spinning on a straight-line axis. I would imagine that the spirals would increase in size, depending upon what the bullet is doing in flight.

One difference is that the bullet has a different propulsion system, but, essentially, behaves in a similar fashion to a rocket experiencing some sort of failure.

 

[paladius]

KTex, that's a great image...but it still don't explain a 4 mile wide diameter vortex from a missile that likely would not have been more than 10' in diameter.