In the point detonation model approximation, the detonation process is not considered. It is only assumed that, in the initial time, in the small part of the volume, an emanation of energy occurs. The assumptions and conclusions regarding this model are presented in the studies of Taylor, Sedov and von Neumann, who developed it independently. This model was then further developed by, among others, Staniukowicz.
dP > 26 kg/cm2 | 25,497,290 dyn/cm2 | 2.5 mPa | ~24 atm | Instant death, full body disintegration. |
dP > 8 kg/cm2 | 7,845,320 dyn/cm2 | 0.7 mPa | ~7.5 atm. | Instant death, body throw back, disintegration of body parts. |
dP > 5 kg/cm2 | 4,903,325 dyn/cm2 | 0.4 mPa | ~4.5 atm | Fatal damage, 99% chance of lethal outcome. Disintegration of body parts, massive damage to soft and bone tissue. |
dP > 3.8 kg/cm2 | 3726527 dyn/cm2 | 0.37 mPa | ~3.6 atm | Heavy damage, 75% chance of lethal outcome. In lucky case hospitalization for at least 2-3 months. |
dP > 2.5 kg/cm2 | Moderate damage, 10% risk of fatality or hospitalization for 1-2 months. | |||
dP > 2.1 kg/cm2 | Light injuries, hospitalization for 7-15 days. | |||
dP > 1.6 kg/cm2 | Disruption of neural system up to loss of consciousness. | |||
dP > 1.1 kg/cm2 | Rupture of tympanic membranes for average human. | |||
dP > 0.5 kg/cm2 | Minimal safe distance for artilleryman. |
Physics separates the possible from the impossible. No plausible natural explanation or primitive human action can effect these things. Deadly human innovations are necessary - a machine in broadest sense.In a great sense, we seek Occam's Law which favors the fewest necessary independent causes of an outcome. More formally, the number of states that one cause can exist in, is less daunting than the multiplicity of independent causes.
Physics separates the possible from the impossible. No plausible natural explanation or primitive human action can effect these things. Deadly human innovations are necessary - a machine in broadest sense.In a great sense, we seek Occam's Law which favors the fewest necessary independent causes of an outcome. More formally, the number of states that one cause can exist in, is less daunting than the multiplicity of independent causes.
For example, Rube Goldberg's contraptions are amusing in that an excess of sequential causes are linked together. None may fail or the machine fails. Each cause must be on such a state to execute properly. If there are 10 causes, the chance of success is tenth-power polynomial.
Such a thing is obviously more dicey than a single cause with a set of states, the subset of which succeed.
Back to Kholat Syakl, the puzzle is frustrating as there apparently is no obvious single cause of it all. Several independent causes coincided to cause this particular outcome, to Occam's regret.
It's really weird you just mentioned this because I just brought this up in a way in the new theories threads.No surprise. We are a rather bright and intuitive bunch, and new thoughts echo and resonate amongst us. That's the fun of it.
The autopsies offer a wealth of information.
Blood in the postmortem pleural fluid is suggestive of blast lung. Hemopericardium suggests blunt trauma to chest.
Even the two Yuris had no hemopericardium or pleural bleed - and one of them fell several meters from the tree!
The parchment-like abrasions seem to be autopsy jargon for something. Dilated venous prominence is a major finding of uncertain significance in my experience. Look at one of the Yuris photographs of his forearm. It looks like a river delta! That's called postmortem marbleization as bacteria form dyes out of heme breakdown, I learn. Nothing unusual.
There are autopsy clues suggesting Rustem survived something like blast trauma, but no fractures. He was found on an antemortem ice bed, so he must have cooled to death right there. Wasn't blown up in the den.
stadhaugh.com (http://stadhaugh.com) offers 20 minutes until frostbite, -10 F ~ -23 C, 15 kph wind.
Even if an under-dressed, terrified hiker covered the distance to the cedar in rapid time, 4.5 kph or 2.8 mph, which is a rather brisk speed in winter hikes - the hiker arrives half-dead with frozen flesh, no time for building a fire, etc. And when the hikers were laden and underway, it took them a frigid hour to move 1500 meters on skis. Could a poorly clad hiker even get so far as the cedar?
Snow pressure.
Is it possible that the chest injuries to Lyuda and Semyon were received after they died? According to the histotological examination of the body tissues of Lyuda and Semyon there was no underlying cellular reaction. The normal cellular reaction to tissue damage being swelling of the surrounding tissue. If they were already dead then you would not expect the cellular reaction.
I've done some simple calculations for snow pressure and for about 5 metres of snow there would have been at least 1 tonne of force exhurted on their chests? Coult the chest damage simply be crushing force from the weight of snow, with subsequent leakage of blood fluids into the body cavities?
Snow pressure.
Is it possible that the chest injuries to Lyuda and Semyon were received after they died? According to the histotological examination of the body tissues of Lyuda and Semyon there was no underlying cellular reaction. The normal cellular reaction to tissue damage being swelling of the surrounding tissue. If they were already dead then you would not expect the cellular reaction.
I've done some simple calculations for snow pressure and for about 5 metres of snow there would have been at least 1 tonne of force exhurted on their chests? Coult the chest damage simply be crushing force from the weight of snow, with subsequent leakage of blood fluids into the body cavities?
Both Semyon and Lyudmila died from internal bleeding with the volume of blood allowing the pathologist to estimate how long they lived post trauma.
But what about the lack of a cellular reaction in surrounding tissues?I'm not qualified to comment! kewl1
I can't imagine that the possibility of snow pressure cracking the ribs has not already been considered, or the conflicting reports between the histology results and pathologists determination of cause of death.Before the thaw the bodies would have been as hard as ice? There is a pathology issue in general with keeping bodies frozen in that the water rich organs expand and can damage bone structures such as the skull (brain expansion) but not afaik the rib cage which in these cases suffered shockwave trauma which is different. But i'm relying on the pathologist to determine these matters. As a pathologist working in Siberia i would expect him to be acquainted with the effects of freezing on corpses. After the thaw they were under a "lens" in running water?
The bodies were found during the thaw so they were probably not frozen solid under the snow. Also if they were exposed to enough pressure to crack their ribs then that same pressure would also push any bodily fluids into the body cavities.
The autopsy found up to 1.5 litres of dark red fluid in the body cavity. That's about 3 pints, which doesn't seem that much. It says cause of death was the combination of the trauma and cold effect which seems a bit vague.
I don't think snow pressure would explain Thibos skull injury.
It would be good to eliminate snow pressure as a cause but to me there seems to be conflicting information in the case files.
Just out of interest in the case files section posted on the forum there seems to be missing text xxxxxx etc is this simply bits missing from the original reports or illegible text/writing?
The people in the den were likely huddled together, and some evil person threw or dropped a serious military explosive device into their midst. The reports say that the victims' heads were found 30 cm. apart. Let's assume that the bomb went off a meter or so from each of them. Perhaps they were in a little huddle 25cm. apart.
What is the Sadovsky equation, given r in meters = 1, and trying to solve for m, the mass of the explosive in TNT equivalents, and the overpressure in atmospheres?
(http://image.ibb.co/hg4qtS/SadFoo.jpg) (http://imgbb.com/)
The TNT equivalents would be 17g on solid earth, or 300g. in air, if they were a meter apart.
The TNT equivalents would be 400 mg on solid earth, or 800mg. in air, if they were 30 cm. apart.
Lethal concussion grenades usually hold about 500g of TNT equivalents; nowadays, quite a bit more.
Just for comparison - if they were all 3 meters apart, it would take 4-8 kilograms to ensure a kill.
How is this possible? Why, it's clear from the equation that there is a huge r3 component. Up close, it doesn't take much. Flash-bang grenades have 9 grams of low-intensity explosive - see https://www.combinedsystems.com/_pdf/MSDS/MSDS%207290%20Rev%20C%20Flash-Bang.pdf (https://www.combinedsystems.com/_pdf/MSDS/MSDS%207290%20Rev%20C%20Flash-Bang.pdf)
I don't have the relative explosivity of perchlorate, but I know it's low. Could it be the equivalent of 400-800 mg. of TNT, in a 9-gram package? Sure.
There was no firm intent to murder the persons in the den. It was incredibly careless to use any explosive in the den, where people could be grievously injured. They were.
But WHY? What were the searchers after? and how can I be so certain?
I can't imagine that the possibility of snow pressure cracking the ribs has not already been considered, or the conflicting reports between the histology results and pathologists determination of cause of death.Before the thaw the bodies would have been as hard as ice? There is a pathology issue in general with keeping bodies frozen in that the water rich organs expand and can damage bone structures such as the skull (brain expansion) but not afaik the rib cage which in these cases suffered shockwave trauma which is different. But i'm relying on the pathologist to determine these matters. As a pathologist working in Siberia i would expect him to be acquainted with the effects of freezing on corpses. After the thaw they were under a "lens" in running water?
The bodies were found during the thaw so they were probably not frozen solid under the snow. Also if they were exposed to enough pressure to crack their ribs then that same pressure would also push any bodily fluids into the body cavities.
The autopsy found up to 1.5 litres of dark red fluid in the body cavity. That's about 3 pints, which doesn't seem that much. It says cause of death was the combination of the trauma and cold effect which seems a bit vague.
I don't think snow pressure would explain Thibos skull injury.
It would be good to eliminate snow pressure as a cause but to me there seems to be conflicting information in the case files.
Just out of interest in the case files section posted on the forum there seems to be missing text xxxxxx etc is this simply bits missing from the original reports or illegible text/writing?
I think the xxxx is from the translation software admitting defeat, perhaps the terminology getting too technical?
Given the close proximity of such a device wouldn’t there be scorch marks and damage to soft tissue? Also, evidence in the snow of the device, metal fragments etc?Well the luxury you have with ball lightning is that as no one knows how it explodes (or even why?) it could be made to fit any profile, very local but subsonic and with no flash burns. If you went up in a microlight and were next to a lightning bolt the resultant thunder clap would be powerful but subsonic?
What if the blast came from much further away?
There seems to something not quite right about the available information. Pathology says blast wave but no shrapnel or scorch marks. Histology says no cellular reaction. So if it wasn’t snow pressure, or a fall or an impact from some object and it was a blast wave then was it a large blast from something quite far away but big, that killed them quickly thus preventing time for a cellular reaction?Pathology says high energy, like a blast or an impact from an automobile?
The effects of nearby explosions are more complex than distant explosions.
A distant explosion forms a flat impulse plane that races invisibly at supersonic speed across the air. If you are 1000 or 1200 meters from the blast, it makes almost no difference in the nature of its effects.
But an explosion up close, the explosion acts as a point source of energy dispersion. As a nearby blast rushes by a hollow cylinder like the human chest, it pushes inward at the side of first contact, then racing past squeezes the sides, and finally the back is pushed inward, and the cylinder experiences a nearly symmetrical crushing force. Remember, explosion blast waves are supersonic, >330 mm/ msec. That's passing across the width of the human chest in a millisecond or two. The US equivalent,CompB6, blasts at 7m/msec or so. The front of the chest hasn't even started to move inward from the blast in 1 msec. The Sadovsky formulas are used in blast physics. Ironically, some of the institute graduates who died on Kholat Syakl were likely skilled in this area.
In more detail, the nearby blast also spreads the surface where it first contacts - a "tearing-apart" force. Then, when the following negative pressure wave hits, it gathers together -"pinches in" the surface at the point of initial contact.
What if your head is next to the blast? Ask poor Tibo, his skull was wrecked right where the pressure first hit it, like a pane of bulletproof glass struck by a rifle round. The others had their chests torn up. The only compelling force that efficiently explains the data is a nearby explosion.
______
The Mathematics Of Blowing Stuff Up
In order to make numerical assertions, it's worthwhile to use cited work in the literature. This is not to seem snooty; rather the opposite, it's to be humble enough to show sources.
My first well-connected source is Influence Of Dimensional Proportions Of Cylindrical Explosive On Resulting Blast Wave, Robert Panowicz, Michał Trypolin, Marcin Konarzewsk, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 23, No. 4 2016 It mentions what has been known about explosions, that the effects depend only on energy and distance. It cites Sadovsky, who seems to have written the definitive work on explosions: Sadovsky, M.A., Mechanical effects of air shockwaves from explosions according to experiments, in: Geophysics and Physics of Explosion (ed. M.A. Sadovsky), Nauka Press, Moscow 2004
Panowicz et al. offer a discussion of point-source blasts, or "a nearby explosion," which, I've suggested, was the cause of the wreckage in the den and upon the poor trekkers.QuoteIn the point detonation model approximation, the detonation process is not considered. It is only assumed that, in the initial time, in the small part of the volume, an emanation of energy occurs. The assumptions and conclusions regarding this model are presented in the studies of Taylor, Sedov and von Neumann, who developed it independently. This model was then further developed by, among others, Staniukowicz.
There seems to something not quite right about the available information. Pathology says blast wave but no shrapnel or scorch marks. Histology says no cellular reaction. So if it wasn’t snow pressure, or a fall or an impact from some object and it was a blast wave then was it a large blast from something quite far away but big, that killed them quickly thus preventing time for a cellular reaction?Pathology says high energy, like a blast or an impact from an automobile?
Given the close proximity of such a device wouldn’t there be scorch marks and damage to soft tissue? Also, evidence in the snow of the device, metal fragments etc?Well the luxury you have with ball lightning is that as no one knows how it explodes (or even why?) it could be made to fit any profile, very local but subsonic and with no flash burns. If you went up in a microlight and were next to a lightning bolt the resultant thunder clap would be powerful but subsonic?
What if the blast came from much further away?
The injury profile is that two people got it very bad, others (like Rustem) much less (which assumes of course it's from the same event). Presumably a more distant, more powerful blast would be more equal in it's damage? Also there would have to be tree damage?
Personally i think Lyudmila's one rib pushed into the heart is difficult to explain from a blast? Much more easy to explain as impact? Unless the blast is throwing her against something pointed.
I'm getting into the idea that they fell into the ravine perhaps down a snowbank that focused the landing point. I've always argued that this is completely against the injury profile (no limb injuries) but if they fell without conscious control then it starts to make sense. Imagine being on top of a one storey building like a bungalow with the roof covered in ice with a group of people who follow you down one after the other. Now imagine everyone is blindfolded so they can't react. Now you slide down the roof and land on a girl's chest. Then someone lands on you. The girl and you are in say snow a metre deep. Impacts to the arms and legs just push the limb deeper into the snow but the torso doesn't move down so easily and the head is strongly attached to the torso (unlike the limbs which can also rotate). So the first ones down the slide receive the worst injuries with the last ones just picking up bruises.
The ravine could have been very dark.... and as previously argued at least one nitrogen oxide intoxicates and heavier than air gases would collect in the ravine. Also warm gases including air could make the snow unstable causing a group of people walking single file to fall as a group one after the other perhaps..
The effects of nearby explosions are more complex than distant explosions.
A distant explosion forms a flat impulse plane that races invisibly at supersonic speed across the air. If you are 1000 or 1200 meters from the blast, it makes almost no difference in the nature of its effects.
But an explosion up close, the explosion acts as a point source of energy dispersion. As a nearby blast rushes by a hollow cylinder like the human chest, it pushes inward at the side of first contact, then racing past squeezes the sides, and finally the back is pushed inward, and the cylinder experiences a nearly symmetrical crushing force. Remember, explosion blast waves are supersonic, >330 mm/ msec. That's passing across the width of the human chest in a millisecond or two. The US equivalent,CompB6, blasts at 7m/msec or so. The front of the chest hasn't even started to move inward from the blast in 1 msec. The Sadovsky formulas are used in blast physics. Ironically, some of the institute graduates who died on Kholat Syakl were likely skilled in this area.
In more detail, the nearby blast also spreads the surface where it first contacts - a "tearing-apart" force. Then, when the following negative pressure wave hits, it gathers together -"pinches in" the surface at the point of initial contact.
What if your head is next to the blast? Ask poor Tibo, his skull was wrecked right where the pressure first hit it, like a pane of bulletproof glass struck by a rifle round. The others had their chests torn up. The only compelling force that efficiently explains the data is a nearby explosion.
______
The Mathematics Of Blowing Stuff Up
In order to make numerical assertions, it's worthwhile to use cited work in the literature. This is not to seem snooty; rather the opposite, it's to be humble enough to show sources.
My first well-connected source is Influence Of Dimensional Proportions Of Cylindrical Explosive On Resulting Blast Wave, Robert Panowicz, Michał Trypolin, Marcin Konarzewsk, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 23, No. 4 2016 It mentions what has been known about explosions, that the effects depend only on energy and distance. It cites Sadovsky, who seems to have written the definitive work on explosions: Sadovsky, M.A., Mechanical effects of air shockwaves from explosions according to experiments, in: Geophysics and Physics of Explosion (ed. M.A. Sadovsky), Nauka Press, Moscow 2004
Panowicz et al. offer a discussion of point-source blasts, or "a nearby explosion," which, I've suggested, was the cause of the wreckage in the den and upon the poor trekkers.QuoteIn the point detonation model approximation, the detonation process is not considered. It is only assumed that, in the initial time, in the small part of the volume, an emanation of energy occurs. The assumptions and conclusions regarding this model are presented in the studies of Taylor, Sedov and von Neumann, who developed it independently. This model was then further developed by, among others, Staniukowicz.
It's true that if you look at the injuries and histology report it just seems like their chest were crushed as if some heavy weight were slowly lowered over the area of their chests as to not cause any tissue damage externally. Like they were crushed in a big fat vice. That's why I am trying to understand if the snow pressure option is realistic.
One thing that could have caused the injuries is a large wind blast that threw them, and dropped them some distance onto a flattish surface or snow. I don't think this couldnhavenhappened if they were in the ravine though as the ravine itself would afford some protection. So if it was something like that it would have happened further up the slope or possibly even at the cedar tree.
If any one cares to study the various types of BLAST INJURY throughout the history of weapons I doubt they will find any injuries like those on the Dyatlov bodies in the Ravine. And certainly not without any material remains from those weapons.
Given the close proximity of such a device wouldn’t there be scorch marks and damage to soft tissue? Also, evidence in the snow of the device, metal fragments etc?Well the luxury you have with ball lightning is that as no one knows how it explodes (or even why?) it could be made to fit any profile, very local but subsonic and with no flash burns. If you went up in a microlight and were next to a lightning bolt the resultant thunder clap would be powerful but subsonic?
What if the blast came from much further away?
The injury profile is that two people got it very bad, others (like Rustem) much less (which assumes of course it's from the same event). Presumably a more distant, more powerful blast would be more equal in it's damage? Also there would have to be tree damage?
Personally i think Lyudmila's one rib pushed into the heart is difficult to explain from a blast? Much more easy to explain as impact? Unless the blast is throwing her against something pointed.
I'm getting into the idea that they fell into the ravine perhaps down a snowbank that focused the landing point. I've always argued that this is completely against the injury profile (no limb injuries) but if they fell without conscious control then it starts to make sense. Imagine being on top of a one storey building like a bungalow with the roof covered in ice with a group of people who follow you down one after the other. Now imagine everyone is blindfolded so they can't react. Now you slide down the roof and land on a girl's chest. Then someone lands on you. The girl and you are in say snow a metre deep. Impacts to the arms and legs just push the limb deeper into the snow but the torso doesn't move down so easily and the head is strongly attached to the torso (unlike the limbs which can also rotate). So the first ones down the slide receive the worst injuries with the last ones just picking up bruises.
The ravine could have been very dark.... and as previously argued at least one nitrogen oxide intoxicates and heavier than air gases would collect in the ravine. Also warm gases including air could make the snow unstable causing a group of people walking single file to fall as a group one after the other perhaps..
The luxury with ball lightning is also a bit of a problem too because you can't make any substantiated conclusions with something we don't understand well.
In terms of a fall, I don't think they would need to be walking single file. They may have been moving together in a line supporting or helping others who were struggling individuals. Oneofnthe things that I was thinking is that the ravine is prone to 15 foot snow drifts. Could it have been possible that they walked over the top of a drift and it give way. Or they just could have fallen. The chances are they still could have landed on top of each other. As I stated before a force of about 2 tonnes over 15cm for about a fall of 5 metres onto a flat surface. It's a large force but don't know if it's enough?