Baluncore
Science Advisor
- 16,449
- 10,154
I deal in provable facts, not negotiated settlements. Everything follows on from the shock front. If you cannot, or will not, accept the shock wave model, then there is no hope for understanding the things that follow.Squizzie said:Folks, this analysis of the shock front is fascinating, but could I implore you to return to the question of the source of the low pressure in the back of the blast wave?
The condensation cloud is mostly irrelevant to the blast damage. It occurs at less than atmospheric pressure in cool air, after the out-rush of the blast wave. The local temperature and humidity make a big difference to when and how it will appear. It is simply an indicator of a momentary situation, there is no massive flow associated with it, if it comes, then it will go.
The Friedlander equation is a model for blast damage. It says nothing about any momentary condensation that may appear later. Models come with assumptions. Do you need independent evidence that mountains cause wave clouds?Squizzie said:It has been suggested that it is the expression of a heavily damped oscillation, which is interesting, but there seems to be little independent evidence for that and the absence of an oscillating term in Friedlander equation would not support that view.
So long as you reject the science of blast waves, and probe the irrelevancies of the pretty looking subsonic distractions, (that you once thought were a Mack 1.0 shock front), your private investigation will lead to a fiction. Disputing, or casting doubt on the facts, will not help in understanding the science.
The science is known. Read and accept Kinney and Graham. Stop trying to invent an alternative story, for your arbitrary and postmodernist, alternative private universe.