Meteorite fall in Chelyabinsk!

[Moontanman]

Wow, so that might be what it looks like to see a hyper velocity neutron star, punching thru Earth? Not quite, a neutron star is VERY tiny compared to an 8,000 mile wide Earth, only 12 miles across, and a perfect sphere. It would be a tiny dot with a thin tail (or how thick a tail could it create?) of Earth material following it. But nice poster, never-the-less. Thanks for posting that mountainman.

 

that picture is actually a photo shopped picture of a high powered rifle bullet going through an apple, no connection what so ever to a neutron stars going through the earth, but as you say it is funny..

 

Last I heard, Tunguska level events were every few hundred years, but that is a meteor 50 YARDS across. The recent Siberian blast of 2-15-13 was said to be a once in a hundred years, only 50 feet across.

 

 

Ok that explains the discrepancy for some reason i had thought they were of comparable size.

[Amaton]

Okay, using the formula from x(x-y), I tried the Chelyabinsk meteor.

 

Assuming a constant speed of approx. 0.99c and a constant rest mass of 10,000,000 kg:

 

[math]E_k\approx1.3472\times10^{32}\,\mbox{kJ}[/math]

 

...according to my calculation. Now this is quite a punch!

[michel123456]

 

Wow, so that might be what it looks like to see a hyper velocity neutron star, punching thru Earth? Not quite, a neutron star at 12 miles across is VERY tiny compared to an 8,000 mile wide Earth. It would be a tiny dot with a thin tail (or how thick a tail could it create?) of Earth material following it. It would go thru Earth like a bullet thru a cloud. But nice poster, never-the-less. Thanks for posting that mountainman.

(...)

You are completely wrong: it is Moon-Tan-Man.

[Airbrush]

You are completely wrong: it is Moon-Tan-Man.

 

 

Yes, I know, I was just joking. You can call me hairbrush if you like.

[michel123456]

Yes, I know, I was just joking. You can call me hairbrush if you like.

Oh that's funny. I just noticed the missing H.

[michel123456]

-------------------

Still looking for info about the flash.

 

found this:

 

from the American Meteor Society frireballs FAQ under section 5.

 

Can fireballs appear in different colors?

(...)

The difficulties of specifying meteor color arise because meteor light

is dominated by an emission, rather than a continuous, spectrum. The

majority of light from a fireball radiates from a compact cloud of

material immediately surrounding the meteoroid or closely trailing it.

95% of this cloud consists of atoms from the surrounding atmosphere; the

balance consists of atoms of vaporized elements from the meteoroid

itself. These excited particles will emit light at wavelengths

characteristic for each element. The most common emission lines observed

in the visual portion of the spectrum from ablated material in the

fireball head originate from iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), and sodium (Na).

Silicon (Si) may be under-represented due to incomplete dissociation of

SiO2 molecules. Manganese (Mn), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu) have been

observed in fireball spectra, along with rarer elements. The refractory

elements Aluminum (Al), Calcium (Ca), and Titanium (Ti) tend to be

incompletely vaporized and thus also under-represented in fireball

spectra.

(emphasis mine)

Again I understand that the flash results from the explosion of ionized particles from the atmosphere.

 

When googling about explosion of ionized particles the return is

ionizing radiation

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation composed of particles that individually carry enough kinetic energy to liberate an electron from an atom or molecule, ionizing it. Ionizing radiation is generated through nuclear reactions, either artificial or natural, by very high temperature (e.g. plasma discharge or the corona of the Sun), via production of high energy particles in particle accelerators, or due to acceleration of charged particles by the electromagnetic fields produced by natural processes, from lightning to supernova explosions.

Plasma discharge. With the following Ionizing radiation hazard symbol

That reminds the reassuring russian announcement immediately after the fall that "radiations levels are normal" or something like that.

 

So my question is: did the kinetic energy of the meteor trigger a natural thermonuclear reaction?

Edited February 24, 2013 by michel123456

[D H]

So my question is: did the kinetic energy of the meteor trigger a natural thermonuclear reaction?

 

No.

 

You are conflating ionizing radiation with an ionized gas and are then extrapolating from there. There was very little, if any, ionizing radiation produced by the fireball. Ionizing radiation is x-rays and gamma rays, plus massive particles (i.e., not photons) moving at relativistic speeds.

 

Even if the flash did produce some x-rays, gammas, or some very fast moving massive particles, that still doesn't mean that a thermonuclear reaction was involved. There was no such reaction. There was nothing to produce such a reaction, fusion or fission.

[michel123456]

No.

 

You are conflating ionizing radiation with an ionized gas and are then extrapolating from there. There was very little, if any, ionizing radiation produced by the fireball. Ionizing radiation is x-rays and gamma rays, plus massive particles (i.e., not photons) moving at relativistic speeds.

 

Even if the flash did produce some x-rays, gammas, or some very fast moving massive particles, that still doesn't mean that a thermonuclear reaction was involved. There was no such reaction. There was nothing to produce such a reaction, fusion or fission.

But there was a plasma discharge.

then maybe something more like a lightning

 

----------------

(edit)

ionized gas is plasma.

Edited February 24, 2013 by michel123456

[D H]

ionized gas is plasma.

 

Yes, it is. However, that does not necessarily mean that ionizing radiation is essential to creating a plasma. Heat will also do the trick.

[michel123456]

Yes, it is. However, that does not necessarily mean that ionizing radiation is essential to creating a plasma. Heat will also do the trick.

releasing 30 times the hiroshima bomb?

[Moontanman]

I think it should also be pointed out that ionizing radiation doesn't necessarily mean radioactivity or radioactive particles, EM is ionizing as well... and friction produces EM radiation... An object hitting the Earth at 18,000 mph would have to produce some intense friction...

[michel123456]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

[Moontanman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

 

From your link...

 

Ionizing radiation includes cosmic rays, Alpha particles, Beta particles, Gamma rays, X-rays, and in general any charged particle moving at relativistic speeds. Neutrons are considered ionizing radiation at any speed.

 

Ionizing radiation includes some portion of the ultraviolet spectrum,

 

depending on context. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared light, and visible light are normally considered non-ionizing radiation, although very high intensity beams of these radiations can produce sufficient heat to exhibit some similar properties to ionizing radiation, by altering chemical bonds and removing electrons from atoms.

 

EM radiation is ionizing under the right circumstances...

Edited February 24, 2013 by Moontanman

[michel123456]

Still looking and collecting sparse information

 

this (from unreliable source)

A few people speculated about EMP. Most of the energy spent slowing the

meteor is used to form a plasma shield which does several things. First,

it actually insulates the rock and delays the heat transfer to it.

Second, the heat in the plasma is high enough to generate lots of light

and other radiation. Third, it is electrically active and moving through

the earth's magnetic field which means it could generate radio waves, a

form of EMP.

that is about the tray.

When the tray explodes (flash) and produces a light brighter than the sun, there must be something going on. It is not the asteroid burning because it is asserted that falling meteors are cold.

Make a google search about plasma explosion pictures.

[Moontanman]

Is it possible that the sudden increase in surface area when the meteor comes apart causes the sudden release of energy?

[Airbrush]

Yes the great increase in surface area, in an instant, is what caused the HiroshimaX30 blast and shock wave, followed by a series of smaller sonic booms when the smaller pieces again fragmented.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Airbrush

[michel123456]

But what caused the flash?

 

 

The flash.

 

I am tired.

I quit.

[Moontanman]

Michel, I am pretty sure I nailed that in post number #90...

[akh]

I would think it would be a comet orbiting the Sun in the opposite direction. How fast could that be? Halley's comet was moving 43 miles per second as it passed Earth.

 

I dont think that can happen, or at least to my knowledge it has never been observed. Because of the conversation of angular moment, all celestial objects in our solar system rotate around the sun in the same direction.

 

Cornell University has made a preliminary model of the likely orbit of the object, based on video of the event and some math.

 

http://urania.udea.edu.co/sitios/facom/research/chelyabinsk-meteoroid.php

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5377

[Airbrush]

Akh, your links say nothing about what direction a comet can orbit the Sun. Does anyone know if all comets orbit the Sun the same direction as all the planets? I don't think so. Long-period comets come from the Oort cloud and I think they go around the Sun in irregular orbits, on any plane, and in any direction.

 

"Long-period comets have highly eccentric orbits and periods ranging from 200 years to thousands or even millions of years..."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

Edited February 28, 2013 by Airbrush

[pwagen]

Hard to find information on it, but it seems the comets with short orbits generally (but not always) orbit in the same direction as the planets, while the long-period ones are a lot more random.

 

However, the most accurate details on this were found on a creationist site (don't ask). But I'd say this sounds reasonable until further notice/better sources.

[SciFiReal]

What method of dodging the bas*ards is the easiest to achieve? http://scifi-real.com/how-to-avoid-impacts-with-objects-from-space/

I like the gravity pull one to nudge an object, but it takes ages and you must see it coming a long time before it collides with Earth.

[akh]

 

Akh, your links say nothing about what direction a comet can orbit the Sun. Does anyone know if all comets orbit the Sun the same direction as all the planets? I don't think so. Long-period comets come from the Oort cloud and I think they go around the Sun in irregular orbits, on any plane, and in any direction."Long-period comets have highly eccentric orbits and periods ranging from 200 years to thousands or even millions of years..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

The purpose of the links was to provide additional information to the Feb 15 event. I did not intend for them to support the idea that all objects orbit in the exact same plane and direction. No doubt comets and asteriods have been acted upon by gravitational pulls othe planets and collisions. Some do follow eccentric ororbits as a result. But by the very nature of the way solar systems form, most objects do indeed orbit in the same direction. I will not claim it is an absolute, that would be foolish in any area of science. I will try to find some literature to back this up. Edited March 2, 2013 by akh

[D H]

A small number of asteroids and short period comets have retrograde orbits. For an example of a comet that orbits retrograde, one need look no further than the most famous comet of all, Halley's Comet. The majority of long period comets apparently have a retrograde orbit.

[Airbrush]

What method of dodging the bas*ards is the easiest to achieve? http://scifi-real.com/how-to-avoid-impacts-with-objects-from-space/

I like the gravity pull one to nudge an object, but it takes ages and you must see it coming a long time before it collides with Earth.

 

Easiest and quickest is the direct approach, smacking it with as much mass as we can or exploding a nuke near enough to cause massive outgassing, if it is not too large. Those methods are quick and dirty last resorts, no telling what direction they will take assuming it is probably rotating. It would be nice to know if it is solid metal, rock, or a rubble pile. If it is several miles across and far enough away, I propose a Bruce Willis, dig into the center and blow it up to scatter the pieces as far apart as possible. Gravity tractors are among the indirect methods, best but they take a long time to work.

 

We will probably not see a Tunguska sized object until it is too late, but probably it will not destroy a major city.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Airbrush