Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: 9N314M DEBUNKED AND FALSIFIED

Basic Dimension








MH17: 9N314M DEBUNKED AND FALSIFIED

Updated: Januari 1, 2016

(From Almaz-Antay is safe:)

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=284722224&access_key=key-qtfE8MB3HxMrZ1r7qtZI



9N314 or 9N314M

The Russians say not to use 9N314 warheads any longer, which are still in use by Ukraine. Like Ukraine, Russians use the modern 9N314M. So if DSB can prove 9N314M downed MH17, Russians are involved as possible perpetrators.

The main difference between warheads 9N314 and 9N314is a piece of steel in the form of a bow-tie, also called the double T or butterfly:

http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr






This bowtie is only to be found in 9N314M. Hence, the real fight is not about the BUK but about the bowties. Who can prove 9N314M involves the Russians, otherwise 9N314 could point to Ukraine.

DSB is a political institute. A scientific institute would provide the world with raw data of impacts on MH17. Then theories about bowties could be confirmed or falsified. Only on logical grounds we will refute the hypothesis of: ‘bowties found in MH17 as coming from the missile used’.

Time is running out and soon there will be no control on raw data of MH17 any longer. Now DSB already made an extra hole in the forward pressure bulkhead (the nose of MH17) inadvertently.

Bowtie evidence of DSB is very doubtful, since they only found two bowties and two cubes of (apparently) 9N314M. But their chemical analysis of aluminum (hull) and zirconium (windshield) on the bowties sticks to a qualitative assessment of the origin. It seems to be based on face value with the naked eye through a microscope.
Now the problem is the probability of bowties in the cockpit (p(b)) is dependent on – or conditional on – the passage of bowties through the cockpit hull (p(bh)) or through the windshield.

In theory we also could accept the passage of fillers through the hull (p(fh)), because they correlate perfectly with bowties. Then, DSB has to prove the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words DSB has to prove butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull.

That’s to say, fillers are acceptable as stand in for bowties only if we don’t know how many bowties are to be expected. That’s why we need exact quantities. And because the number of bowties projected perpendicular on the cockpit hull – from a very short distance of only 3 meter – is exactly known, we demand full proof of butterflies in the hull.

If DSB cannot prove this conditional probability > 0 – for example because pieces of the roof are lost or missing(?) – then the single bowtie in the captain’s body must have penetrated in a different way.


Because DSB refuses to give the raw data of holes in the cockpit hull in a orderly and systematic manner, we use logical reasoning to debunk 9N314M. We think warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. What not means we attach to 9N314.


http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-for-dsb-having-no-answers-in-final-report/#comment-12254


Thanks for all constructive criticism. I reformulated the model and relaxed the translation principle somewhat. We might conclude the lancet proposed by A-A is a phenomenon not yet well understood. Millions of simulations just delivered a random blur with some heavy metals in the midst:

http://tinyurl.com/pszygp8







Predictions from the dynamic model are not much better. Yet there is something fascinating with the lancet what may explain the working of the scythe through the cockpit of MH17. But until now at best the blast throws light metals far in the outer radial region (blue) while heavy metals remain more in the inner region. The form of the lancet might also be influenced by the positioning of shrapnel on the warhead.



The best picture id DSB report for search blast point is it:
http://s05.radikal.ru/i178/1604/64/2ea5989fdd1e.png
I see 2 focus point. It is very right. Heavy(slow) and light(fast) fragments of warhead must get different blust position, because Boeing have non zero speed.


 sotilaspassi // April 22, 2016 at 1:50 pm // Reply
Some things from thoughts …
Detonation close vs far, movement vs no movement etc.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wWTVFU1c3MkRScEU



On the above image (IMHO) the lowest density of shrapnel hit area of MH17 is being compared to highest density shrapnel area of IL86.
To me it seems the most dense fragment impact area of MH17 seems so heavily affected that almost nothing remains of it. Mainly the edges of the impact area (low density) were covered for reconstruction by DSB.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wMEdrc0FnZGxJZEU




Also one must note that fast (2400m/s + light weight) shrapnel hit the same area than slow (1100m/s + heavy weight) shrapnel in the IL86 case.
When missile and target move against each other fast (~2540m/s?) and slow (~1320m/s?) shrapnel hit slightly different areas.
So, result looks different.

Some old stuff:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wWTVFU1c3MkRScEU
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wWmNmMDBCMTZFem8





https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wanEzcmkzRVV1Qk0



(Also one must note that explosion might have pushed windows into the cockpit before slow shrapnel fly to them.)

 
Speed really makes a difference:








But without good predictions hypotheses from A-A (Almaz-Antey) also must be rejected. The state of the art not yet explained the state of nature.

Both, Eugene and Antidyatel stipulated the second shock wave shatters the wall, what could make the detonation process somewhat chaotic. Hence we accept some rotation around the frac speed vector translated to the sum vector. Also vertical rotations sporadically are possible. Because of co-propagating shock waves bowties accidentally can rotate around the surface normal vector of the hull. Bowties also can rotate otherwise.

It is expected most bowties approach the frag surface at an angle given on the frac speed vector by the blast, which vector needs not be surface normal. Which also means the velocity vector is not strictly perpendicular to the frag surface. Bowties on the sum vector will enter the hull under independent angles.

All these rotations need not affect the model of DSB because Striking elements (Se's) maintain their position in the group. They might rotate but are not mingling. Therefore, DSB model now agrees better with the data of A-A which are said to show some rotations:



Heavy spinning is not yet assumed because it is not clear how this could lead to parallelity of Se's. And there are not so many drilled holes.

TNO has reported that the spread pattern they calculated with the help of Split-X was not well observed on the wreckage. What was not surprising since the roof was gone.




THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M (4)


http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m



It is well known no clearly identified butterflies are found in the hull of MH17. But under what conditions bowties certainly could have been expected? We set the conditions for finding butterflies on the hull:

– It is true bowties are launched with their upper side.

– Also we know the warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound with partially underneath a layer of cubes. This wall prevents rotation of bowties at the moment of blast. Now a force is needed to break the casing but without proof we will not accept this leads to much rotation of bowties.

- Rotations will happen if the compound exerts differential influence on the Striking elements (Se's) what not seems likely. But deliberate construction can cause rotations.

– We think it would be convenient if bowties are packed together and covered as they will not rotate much but translate in the blast.

- In the flight bowties could rotate unintentionally because of cylindrical charges are known to have co-propagating shock waves reflected from the opposite of the charge casing. In the second instance this additional shock wave might cause rotation of bowties due to translation of the rocket. In what case their original angle also could be changed.

– A sum vector is combined by adding speed from the direction of the blast (the frag speed vector, 2000 m/s) to the missile’s velocity vector (600 m/s). Then it shows a missile with a velocity of Mach 3 (3000 km/h) would bend the sum vector too much from the aircraft and perpendicular holes could not have been expected from Snizhne. 

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM]
http://tinyurl.com/p458ahk





http://tinyurl.com/o6v2ns7





- Only a missile from S. slowed down to Mach 2 (2000 km/h) gives reasonable perpendicular holes. From Z. with Mach 3 perpendicular holes barely can be expected.

http://tinyurl.com/qz5oqk2





http://tinyurl.com/pssa42o




http://tinyurl.com/qg5vpb7




http://tinyurl.com/jjblo9c











https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wU2xjUDByd1RhcTA/edit?pref=2&pli=1





– Bowties are launched and translated into the direction of the sum vector. But a number of them may rotate around the frag speed vector, what becomes visible on the sum vector. Bowties will only accidentally rotate around the surface normal vector of the hull.

- Extraneous influences on the sum vector causing rotations are not expected. The blast causing the speed of bowties and the shock waves are many times stronger than any aerodynamic drag. Moreover, the air is thin at 10 km. Strong winds are definitely weaker than the blast in the first 0.0015 second.




The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.
If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?
It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.

We don’t know much about fragment rotation, and I believe that we don’t need to know much.
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?

Agree. Fragments cannot spin too much so that they don’t leave a distinctive impression. By a large margin. Even if a fragment is accelerated by being hit at one edge only, this still will not give enough rotation. Besides, in the AA test there are bowtie holes. There is no reason to believe that the 6% speed increase will drastically change the picture.

– The point of detonation was about 3 meters from the hull. Already within 0.0015 second, bowties crashed on the hull mostly with their upper side. Speed of the plane is barely relevant. This must have given a number of characteristic butterflies.





- A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as reasonable surface normal to the sum vectorFor this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:

http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9








In the limit of time to zero, which is approached by the velocity of shrapnel of 2000 m/s and a distance to the target of just several centimeters, the effect of the cone of 600 m/s is nil.
Relative velocity between missile and MH17 approaches zero and in case of surface normality, fragment energy goes straight and perpendicular into the hull.
But also the rotation of bowties in the blast is very questionable in the first 0.0005 seconds. Hence, we expect rather well defined bowtie holes as butterflies in the hull.





http://tinyurl.com/z33gpq2









– A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.

–According to the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

– On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

– But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

– Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

– DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350). 

- Assumptions regarding translations optimize chances for finding characteristic butterflies on the hull. But we also have 197+ 420 = 617 fillers (6x6x8.2).  And for them rotations does not matter. This means holes of 168 bowties and fillers out of 350 holes on the hull of MH17 would have shown in case of 9N314M.





– All this evidence together and no bowties or fillers (?) detected falsify 9N314M from Snizhne.


Eugene // May 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm //

The density of the bowtie shaped holes on the Mh17 wreckage should be the same as the density in the AA test. Of 300+ documented holes on 777 there should be dozens of bowtie holes. There is not a single one.

Eugene // May 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm //
            
The increased fragment speed in the real situation, if anything, should only make the hole boundaries cleaner and more distinguished, making holes resembling projectile shape better (compare pictures of low energy holes and high energy holes yourself). And, anyway, the increase in speed would still be small – only 6% for Zaroschenskoe launch modelled by AA (sqrt(2400^2 + (600+250)^2)/2400 = 1.06)


 sotilaspassi // April 20, 2016 at 8:16 am // Reply
”Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total”
So, it would seem that some of the 350 hits are on the skin of the MH17. And 450 estimated hits are not found.
I wonder if more than 25% of the shrapnel hit skin is found…



Sotilaspassi:

I agree. Those 350 hits came through the hull and the windshields into the wreckage. We know most of the hull has been demolished but not the windshields. It might be blue light fillers are faster than bowties and go through the windshields, while red heavy bowties impacted somewhat later on the cockpit frame.

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

Hence, we probably see no butterflies on the windshields:

http://tinyurl.com/z7v5gg8
http://tinyurl.com/h9kw2lx

In a normal accident we would take the two allegedly found bowties in the bodies of the crew for granted. But this is a criminal case with an unattended crime scene for many months. IMO Admin earlier proved what  can happen. I think the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans is the most important find of this investigation, for it almost certainly proves deception by some party. I think this disqualifies all bowties in court.
To resume: I think most bowties are lost in the crash, but we did find 350 impressions somewhere in the wreckage. Then a quarter of them must be made by bowties. For, we may expect 84 bowties from 350 impacts within the wreckage in case of 9N314M. Bowties might be demolished earlier by their passage through the hull. Maybe they are splintered fragments. But that’s a problem for them who want to prove bowties.

Is it statistically possible only two bowties are found? I think so. But as said earlier the bodies of the crew followed a very suspicious trajectory through Donetsk:

[This means no conclusion from these bodies can be trusted anymore by judges. This ruins the DSB report completely. And this information comes not from the DSB-report, but from Dutch RTL.
I have no information about international teams sending the 37 bodies (from the cockpit and first class) to Kalininskiy mortuary. So here responsibilities diverge which ruined the DSB set up for 9N314M.
For the contamination of the bodies of the crew it does not matter who was in charge in Kalininskiy mortuary: separatists or the Ukrainian government.]

This means DSB never had to conclude prematurely to 9N314M as the warhead used. They had to test 9N314 and maybe SAM’s with 40 kg warheads too.






 END OF: THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M (4)


 Wind Tunnel Man // January 3, 2016 at 2:54 pm // Reply
Basic Dimension:
Antidyatel previously made some very valid arguments regarding the acceleration rates of the shrapnel and thus it’s average speed over various range distances. A-A gave us some data about the speeds of different shrapnel elements and it is possible that the lighter “filler” cubes were the first to impact the aircraft in the area of the port side front windows (this might explain the high proportion of smaller puncture and impact marks that we see.) The majority of heavier “bow-tie” elements within that part of the fragmentation spread may have impacted that area of the cockpit moments later, due to the forward motion of the aircraft, and virtually obliterated it. This may explain why we are seeing so few larger holes possibly caused by “bow-ties” in an area of the aircraft that was closest to the warhead.


 Wind tunnel man // November 19, 2015 at 8:45 pm // Reply

Basic Dimension:

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq – please note that’s not actually a “lancet” rather it’s merely an indication of the “entry hole angles of submunitions” from a theoretical warhead prior to repositioning and reorienting – A-A presentation, slide 43, top image “dynamic position”.

The lower image “static position” also shows the entry hole angles of submunitions but with a repositioned and reoriented warhead, i.e. with “adjustment corrections”, simulating a moving missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne and intercepting a target representing MH17’s movement and heading – that was used for the live test on the IL-86 and a “lancet” was not correctly formed.

The formation of the “lancet”, as intended by the designers, from an actual moving M38(M1) missile and 9N314M warhead is shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs at 13 minutes and 30 seconds:




http://unit0.livejournal.com/1120.html



http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dsb-final-report-doubts-damage-of-left-wing-and-left-engine-nacelle/#comment-16743 

Looking at the actual structure of the warhead (as seen in a diagram in a metabunk comment) the warhead is normally fused to fire at one end so it detonates as a linear charge with a significant retrograde component. In effect the particle pattern becomes orthogonal to the trajectory of the missile in fixed frame of reference rather than as a forward cone as shown on the metabunk diagram.
                                          
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-for-dsb-having-no-answers-in-final-report/#comment-11905


 Basic Dimension // November 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm // Reply

MH17: 9N314M DEBUNKED AND FALSIFIED


DSB’s preconception of the launch of a BUK from Snizhne with warhead 9N314M turns out to be a distortion of the facts. A launch from Zaroshchenske with warhead 9N314 might fit the data better:

http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM

http://tinyurl.com/jjmxkba






http://tinyurl.com/okx7sgq










if DSB’s conception of how MH17 is shot down is disconfirmed, accusations will be worthless in court and the Dutch people should reckon with bitter disappointments. It concerns the launch site (Snizhne) and the postulated warhead (9N314M).

There are a number of legitimate arguments against a launch from Snizhne. But here we focus on disconfirming 9N314M.

http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr





http://tinyurl.com/hworsr2




How must scientists cooperate with militaries and politicians? Can they put scientific stamps on unvalidated theories? Of course not, because then they implicitly would take responsibility for immanent assumptions.

So, how is MH17 linked to politics and the military?

DSB report Appendix, Z page 13:

4.3 Warhead
[Starting point for the terminal ballistics simulation [by TNO:The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research] is a warhead with preformed fragments. In consultation with DSB, NLR [Dutch Aerospace Laboratory] and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence warhead 9N314M of Surface to Air Missile(SAM) type 9M38M1 has been modelled.]


Page 3:

[This study uses classified data as meant by the Wet Bescherming Staatsgeheimen (state secrets act). The text of this report is inspected and released for publication by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence.]


TNO as a scientific institute accepted insufficient substantiated assumptions of the 9N314M model from political and military institutes. In this way, TNO granted the predicate ‘scientific’ to a form of tunnelvision.

TNO better started with the facts from scratch. In any case, it would have been better if TNO also explored 9N314 as kind of control on 9N314M.

In the following we debunk warhead 9N314M as form of tunnelvision of DSB and show how TNO easily could have disconfirmed 9N314M. As follows:


Blast: chaos or harmony?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs

http://tinyurl.com/qddgnka







The frag speed of warhead 9N314M is 2000 meter/sec. The distance of the point of detonation to the hull of MH17 is 3 meter. Hence within 3/2000 = 0.0015 second shrapnel enters the hull. The question is in what order shrapnel arrives at the hull in such short time. Is this in chaos as AA believes, or is this in perfect harmony as DSB supposes.



IsThatSo // May 10, 2016 at 8:25 pm // Reply
The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.
If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?
It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.

Now Wind tunnel man showed good insight by bringing this dilemma to our attention:

DSB believes the shrapnel composition of warhead 9N314M remains the same on the hull as it was on the warhead: left (bowties and fillers) and to the right (bowties, fillers and cubes). Then warhead 9N314M is projected on the cockpit roof of MH17 as an identical template:

http://tinyurl.com/q9479x2




Even from the pitch between high energy objects DSB believes it can distinguish different types of shrapnel. Well, is it strange that I suppose this also means that shrapnel wll land on the hull with the upside within 0.0015 second? So DSB must expect to see perfect butterflies on the hull:

http://tinyurl.com/q7xsmv7





On the other hand AA believes in the chaos theory where much more is happening than in the big bang in the first 0.0015 second. But it turns out not chaos but also perfect harmony, for a lead bearing compound keeps all bowties in good order until the blast and directly after that spinning forces all shrapnel in parallel. That would be amazing to prove mathematically within such short time of 0.0015 second: spinning correcting the chaos of the blast.

We know DSB had no roof to prove its theory, it is all simulation what is another word for science fiction. And the chaos theory can be true but is impossible to prove within a timeframe of only 0.0015 seconds.

Hence we have no proven theory for how shrapnel behaves in the first 0.0015 second after the blast. What does this mean? 


The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.
If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?
It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.

Well of course, DSB can project its template on a roof that is not there. But DSB cannot show bowties of warhead 9N314M went through the hull before entering the cockpit. And because this is a conditional probability for bowties in the cockpit, DSB cannot prove the origin of its two bowties and two cubes. DSB therefore cannot connect to the warhead the found bowties. But we will demonstrate 9N314M indeed can be falsified under the harmony assumption of DSB.

Our proof uses the forgotten and disappeared roof plates on the left side of the plane. They were placed in front of the first left door (L1) after the cockpit. These plates contain a number of very neat and rather perpendicular holes which do not indicate  to bowties.

That's why we conclude 9N314M is falsified by DSB's own assumption of harmony.


 Wind tunnel man // November 14, 2015 at 3:35 am // Reply 
Basic Dimension:
Almaz Antey emphasised the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread when a 9M38(M1) missile carrying a 9N314M warhead is detonated when travelling at speeds of more than 600m/s. When detonated at that speed 42% of the total payload of striking elements, in terms of weight and energy, is directed in a narrow area approximately between 75 to 95 degrees to the missile’s longitudinal axis – this is the scalpel core of the spray zone.

 http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq








If a 9N314M warhead is detonated when not moving (0m/s) then the scalpel/lancet core does not form adequately because the varying speeds of the fragments within the frag spread are not brought into a concentrated radial region. If one looks at A-A’s IL-86 static test there is a certain amount of fragment concentration (slide 56 of their presentation) but if the missile had been moving then the shrapnel would probably have sliced through the IL-86 target like a surgeon’s scalpel due to it’s increased concentration at that range. 

http://tinyurl.com/jjmxkba





http://tinyurl.com/j3dly28




http://tinyurl.com/hcs3ux9






Comparison of damage between IL-86 (Almaz Antey) and MH17 (DSB)







 Eugene // April 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm // Reply

The damage in the AA test does look to be smaller than the observed on the Mh-17 wreckage.

http://savepic.ru/8334698.png






  



Eugene:
More important: definitely different warheads

http://tinyurl.com/zawsx38



http://tinyurl.com/zretspm




http://tinyurl.com/jhdlzml









Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 2:40 am //
Thanks, the holes do look to be different in character, true. I am amazed at how little people are interested in this issue!
Almaz Antay had placed their warhead a lot further from the plane than the one that has detonated next to the Mh-17 in real life. We can tell this either by using a stringing method or just by looking at the damage cover areas. And yet the plane in the Almaz Antey test was sprayed with shrapnel in a lot denser fashion than the Mh-17 plane. Is this too difficult a subject for people to grasp? So that they can infer that the kill weapon needed to have fewer fragments than the warhead used in the field test of Almaz Antey (namely a Buk warhead). Seems so. I am quite speechless…

Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 2:49 am //

> The damage in the AA test does look to be smaller than the observed on the Mh-17 wreckage.




Yes, this is another simple indication that the DSB had placed the detonation point too far (my pic actually).
I reiterate, placing the detonation point too far should result in observed hole density in the test with a real Buk warhead to be smaller. But we see it being greater. The differences do seem to be very noticeable too.
And given the above we are not making any inferences?


But one doesn’t need to move much closer to increase the damage. This is because the damage falls as a square of the distance (or even worse, see below). Let’s say that the observed damage in the AA test looks to be half of that on the Mh17. If we want to place the detonation point twice as close then we’ll need to actually halve the warhead mass if we want to match the damage observed on the Boeing wreckage. And, remember, we want to place the bomb up to three times as close. Therefore, one can conclude that we need a smaller warhead than that of a Buk, not larger. The only alternative to reducing the warhead size is believing the DSB detonation point, and after you’ve drown your own lines it’s pretty hard.
Here is more information on the detonation range versus explosive mass dependence. When it comes to explosions there are various scaling laws, that are often used to extrapolate results of small explosions onto the the explosions of bigger sizes. One of the scaling laws is the Hopkinson-Cranz Scaling Law. Check out the applet here:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/hopkinson-cranz/
In the applet you can enter the explosive weights of 1 kg and 8 kg, and calculate the safe ranges for the two blasts. You’ll see that even if you’ve increased the explosion weight 8-fold, the safe distance (that is the distance of a constant and small damage) only doubled. That should give you the feel for the very sharp dependence of the damage on distance.


 Eugene // April 17, 2016 at 5:07 pm // Reply

The DSB have misrepresented the data about shrapnel cones supplied by AA. The data supplied by AA would not allow even with the use of an unknown matching method to move the detonation point away, because the simulated damage strip would be too wide. Therefore the DSB had to shrink the cone. You can almost see a nontrivial maneuvering job the DSB had to do to come up with a justification for a BUK warhead. And, indeed, when AA placed the warhead into the detonation point found by the DSB the resulting observed damage strip was too wide. For example, in the AA test there were holes before the most forward structure rib shown here on Photo 1, or holes behind the cockpit door. Compare the areas covered by hits http://savepic.ru/8334698.png
As to the calculation of the confining angles, I personally would not trust any calculations, whether Split-X or yours, when a simple test explosion can be performed. One of the reason is that the Buk warhead may contain a primer booster, which is not taken into account by calculations, or may not. The best we can do here is either try to determine the cones from videos, or just trust AA.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs

http://www.scribd.com/doc/284722224/Slideshow-van-Almaz-Antey#scribd




We don’t have much detail about 9N314 warheads, only that they don’t contain bow-tie shaped fragments and cube shaped filler fragments, but perhaps one can assume that they have similar scalpel/lancet characteristics. In the case of MH17 the greatest concentration of shrapnel was directed from above and from the port side of the nose into the port side of the cockpit obliterating the port side windows, window frames and the roof immediately above them.
 
Further aft where the concentration of shrapnel is less one would expect to see clear indications of their shape in the aircraft’s skin. We do and they are cubes, not bow-ties. Roor plate Mh17 between cockpit left and door. However in the IL-86 test there are bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of the aircraft where the concentration of penetrations is less:









 Basic Dimension // November 15, 2015 at 1:26 pm // Reply

Wind tunnel man:

Thanks for the information.

We have a static (IL-86) and a dynamic (MH17) model:

The static model is stable and harmonious and only knows a single force perpendicular to the static missile. If we forget about aero drag the bowtie will be launched from the warhead with the upside (13×13). Within 0.0015 second this upside impacts on the hull at three meters. That’s why we see perfect bowties (13×13) in the A-A static experiment.

The dynamic model is unstable and chaotic and knows at least two forces. The first is again perpendicular to the missile from which the bowtie is launched as an UFO. In the second instance a second force results from the combined velocity of the missile and the blast. Their sum vector causes the UFO (13×13) to proceed on its side as an airplane (13×8.2). This causes imbalance what we call ‘swirls, tumbling or spinning’. Because of chaos and spinning in the dynamic model bowties impact on the hull in all positions. This is what was to be expected below the cockpit window on the left side of MH17: we expected butterfly impacts from all directions within the red cone of heavy metals; but they weren’t there.


The best picture id DSB report for search blast point is it:
http://s05.radikal.ru/i178/1604/64/2ea5989fdd1e.png
I see 2 focus point. It is very right. Heavy(slow) and light(fast) fragments of warhead must get different blust position, because Boeing have non zero speed.


So, we conclude surface normal (perpendicularity) works excellent only within the static model of IL-86. In the dynamic model spinning is an intervening variable which distorts (13×13). But – as said – this does not mean (13×8.2) cannot give very good recognizable butterflies on the hull or MH17. These were not found.
In a static model there is no unifying force, since shrapnel is launched as placed on the warhead. Heavy elements (red) as bowties and cubes concentrate mainly around the set-off point and light elements (blue) as fillers and little cubes come somewhat further. So no scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread develops, there comes no cone, no knife through the butter.

In a dynamic model the velocity of the missile as a second force reshapes the static corona in a cone. The faster the missile flies, the sharper the cone. That’s what we call the scalpel/lancet force of the frag spread. A greater relative velocity means a sharper knife through the cockpit.

The velocity of the missile causes the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread. This forms an inner cone (red) of heavy metals and a more diffuse outer cone which has not much impact. But the first force of the blast already put elements in parallel order as placed on the warhead. Spinning as an artifact of aero drag is not needed for parallelity.

Now if there are different kinds of shrapnel in weight and shape placed on the warhead, it would be obvious to expect this template projected on IL-86 in a static situation. Well, it does because the image of the template was not projected as the front of a circle but as its side, as is small rectangle on IL-86. That’s why we only saw a diffuse mess of red and blue shrapnel.





This diffuse mess also happened in their dynamic simulation. Hence, we conclude dynamic simulation also has big shortcomings modeling dynamic reality. On the other hand it simply can be 0.0015 second and three meters is insufficient to fully deploy the template of the warhead.

We don’t need to be rocket scientists to understand what happened with MH17. Only logical reasoning suffices. The velocity of the missile introduced a disturbing force which caused shrapnel to whirl, tumble and spin. Within only 0.0015 second and three meter this sum vector sharpened the cone which sliced through the cockpit.

We also know surface normal only works perfect in a static model to deliver perfect butterflies on the hull as with IL-86. It is proven bowtie impacts are very well recognizable coming from all kinds of (acute) angles. And that means if bowties are not found in the center of the red cone (under the left windshields) this disconfirms 9N314M. Furthermore the lack of butterflies on the more surface normal roof plates definitely falsifies 9N314M for MH17.

 Wind tunnel man // November 15, 2015 at 3:37 pm //
Basic Dimension:

That’s a very interesting analysis.

Are you saying that the warhead has a “shaped charge” directing a large proportion of the shrapnel at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the missile’s longitudinal axis, i.e. a static warhead would have a large proportion of the shrapnel projected in directions to the rear of the missile. A missile travelling forwards at speeds in excess of 600m/s would effectively move that large proportion of shrapnel to positions nearer to 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the missile’s longitudinal axis at the moment of detonation and create a lancet. And because the shrapnel’s direction of travel (that would be expected from a static detonation) is effectively changed by the forward speed of the missile that would cause an “imbalance what we call swirls, tumbling or spinning?”

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq




Perhaps if the “shaped charge” is counteracted by the forward speed of the missile then the bow-tie shaped fragments would still be projected away from the warhead with their 13mm x 13mm bow-tie side facing forward within the lancet? Perhaps it would only be bow-ties not within the lancet (subject to imbalance) and/or those covering a longer range, subjected to aerodynamic forces, that would tend to tumble?

Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?

 Basic Dimension // November 15, 2015 at 8:28 pm //

Wind tunnel man:

Firstly, the reason of butterflies on the hull of IL-86 is because there is only a single force of 90 degrees from the direction of the static warhead. If we discard aero drag within 3 meters, bowties cannot rotate.

[Are you saying that the warhead has a “shaped charge” directing a large proportion of the shrapnel at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the missile’s longitudinal axis, i.e. a static warhead would have a large proportion of the shrapnel projected in directions to the rear of the missile?]

This totally depends on how the charge has been shaped on the warhead.
In 9N314M the smallest layer of shrapnel is at the backside of the warhead (bowties and fillers). Dependent on from where the explosion originates shrapnel is easily projected to the rear of the missile. This gives the sum vector of a parallelogram with a somewhat restrained cone.

[A missile traveling forwards at speeds in excess of 600m/s would effectively move that large proportion of shrapnel to positions nearer to 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the missile’s longitudinal axis at the moment of detonation and create a lancet.]

I think so.

[And because the shrapnel’s direction of travel (that would be expected from a static detonation) is effectively changed by the forward speed of the missile that would cause an “imbalance what we call swirls, tumbling or spinning?”]

No, I’m wrong. It’s the other way round:

1: forward speed missile.
2: 90 degrees shrapnel speed.
3: translation of bowtie (no rotation) by sum vector.

Firstly, the bowtie has a forward motion just like the person in the train of Einstein. But the bowtie is unaware of the velocity of the missile. The bowtie is ‘in harmony’ with its forward motion.
Then, a bomb explodes in the train and now the person experiences a motion which in fact is perpendicular on the direction of the train. But he experiences a single (additional) force. His body is thrown out of the train as in a translation, not in a rotation. Since for a rotation we need at least two impulses, but we discard aero drag.

The bowtie is translated following the sum vector of the missile and the blast:

http://tinyurl.com/nadc32q



And this means, if we discard drag, there need be no rotations because the thrust is in the bowtie itself. There can be only translations in the direction of the hull. And that means it might be possible bowties come with their upside on the hull of MH17, just as in the static example of IL-86.

[Perhaps if the “shaped charge” is counteracted by the forward speed of the missile then the bow-tie shaped fragments would still be projected away from the warhead with their 13mm x 13mm bow-tie side facing forward within the lancet?]

Yes, it is quite possible.

[Perhaps it would only be bow-ties not within the lancet (subject to imbalance) and/or those covering a longer range, subjected to aerodynamic forces that would tend to tumble?]

No, the lancet is only the combined translation of all launched shrapnel. The lancet itself is a hypothetical construct. The lancet is another word for the increasing velocity of the missile. And if we introduce aero drag within 3 meters we come into problems which lead to rotations.

So we really are only ADDING the perpendicular explosion to the ALREADY EXISTING forward impetus of the missile. There is no fight between powers, simply there is adding in a smooth translation.

[Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?]

No, after the blast bowties are independent elements, they all contribute to the lancet without knowing what that is.

 Wind tunnel man // November 15, 2015 at 10:30 pm // Reply
Basic Dimension (November 15, 2015 at 8:28 pm):

So a lancet (42% of weight and energy of the frag spread in a radial region between approx 75 and 95 degrees relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis) is created by a 9N314M warhead travelling at a forward speed in excess of 600m/s is claimed by Almaz Antey. Was that characteristic considered by NTO when they said that there is a “sudden transition in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead…a sudden transition occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry (page 25 appendix y DSB report) ? Then they talk of the slaves and rings (barrel analogy) in areas aft of that transition point where penetrations become increasing less concentrated (page 20.)

As you have previously said it is in those aft areas where one would expect to find a mix of 3 types of distinct penetrations: by bow-ties, filler cubes and cubes if a 9N314 warhead had been used. However TNO base their findings on a missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne, alternatively if the missile had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage. The lancet would presumably mainly consist of filler cubes and bow-ties and they should leave distinctive holes and grazing marks. A near perpendicular lancet created by a 9N314 warhead would leave only elongated cube shaped holes, which is what we see, and they are at the correct angle relative to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis given a “Zaroshens’ke launch” scenario.

 Basic Dimension // November 16, 2015 at 8:39 pm // Reply

Wind tunnel man [November 15, 2015 at 10:38 PM]:

In the first place we need no A-A theory to disconfirm DSB. We already refute the 9N314M hypothesis on DSB’s own assumptions about deploying shrapnel: there must be found bowties everywhere. But in the second place we need to know the distribution of shrapnel on the lancet of A-A.

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq





I think weight and shape are important. Intuitively, light shrapnel comes further by the blast. Hence, discarding form, fillers (6x6x8.2) will be found in the outer radial region (blue and light) and bowties (13x13x8.2) in the inner radial region (red and heavy). But this is very ambiguous. We definitely has to know the exact distribution of A-A’s radial region before we can disconfirm their hypothesis about MH17 as well. Until I have more information I will stick to mapping on the basis of only weight.
Conflicting information about heavy metals are found in the periphery of the radial region as red on this figure:





But now your excellent perception:

[So a lancet (42% of weight and energy of the frag spread in a radial region between approx 75 and 95 degrees relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis) is created by a 9N314M warhead travelling at a forward speed in excess of 600m/s is claimed by Almaz Antey. Was that characteristic considered by NTO when they said that there is a “sudden transition in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead…a sudden transition occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry]

Well, you are right:

DSB report Appendix Z
Page 19
5 Damage matching

[In this chapter the observed damage pattern and the simulated damage pattern are
compared.]

5.3.1 Fragment distribution within the damage area

[The simulated ejection of individual fragments requires some clarification. The figures 4.3 and 4.4 show a SUDDEN TRANSITION in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead.

http://tinyurl.com/p5kygsq





Due to the applied simulation model, a SUDDEN TRANSITION occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry. The consequence for the fragment damage area is shown in Figure 5.3]






They really mean the thick layer comes later IN TIME AND PLACE.
And I understand A-A thinks of only one wave of shrapnel only SEPARATED IN SPACE within the radial region. This is the lancet:

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq




Indeed that is a tremendous different concept.
TNO definitely thinks of two different waves SEPARATED IN TIME AND SPACE of two successive radials: first wave consists of bowties and light fillers and the second wave consists of cubes, bowties and fillers:

http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf




What means in the lancet of A-A bowties are to be found at the front left windshield – the center of red- and the left part of the roof before door L1, and for TNO bowties have to be found near the front left windshield in the first wave and on the whole roof in the second wave. Bowties must be found on the roof in both theories. (But as said there also are bowties in the periphery of the radial region of the lancet).
We know the theory of NLR is clever but highly speculative, since there was no roof to project on. Also no bowties have been detected below the left cockpit windows, the center of the red area of bowties:

http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u




http://tinyurl.com/q7xsmv7



By logical reasoning we know the following:

On this very short distance of only 3 meters and within 0.0015 second and without any rotations by omission of aero drag or tumbling from the blast, perfect butterflies were expected.
(Now I understand what you meant with [Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?]. Indeed rotation might be initiated by the construction of the warhead too.)

Now you proceed:

[As you have previously said it is in those aft areas where one would expect to find a mix of 3 types of distinct penetrations: by bow-ties, filler cubes and cubes if a 9N314 [sic: 9N314M] warhead had been used.  However TNO base their findings on a missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne, alternatively if the missile [of TNO] had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage.]

This is a confusing part but the TNO concept launched form Zaroshchenske would hit the left part of the cockpit in the first wave, but completely miss the plane in the second wave.

http://tinyurl.com/okx7sgq




[alternatively if the missile [of A-A] had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage.]

Indeed A-A from Zaroshchenske would work excellent:

http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq (Snizhne)





But remember it is unclear where the heavy bowties of A-A in their radial region are positioned. There seems to be a distracting separation of elements:








But in case of TNO grazing on the roof from Zaroshchenske impossibly comes from bowties, fillers and bigger cubes (8x8x5) in the second wave.

You proceed:

[The lancet would presumably mainly consist of filler cubes and bow-ties [WHY? what are the rules? And remember the outer region also is the lancet] and they should leave distinctive holes and grazing marks. A near perpendicular lancet created by a 9N314 warhead would leave only elongated cube shaped holes [why?], which is what we see, and they are at the correct angle relative to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis given a “Zaroshens’ke launch” scenario.]





We are almost there. Disconfirming DSB has already done, but confirming A-A becomes a problem without an exactly known distribution on the radial of the lancet. Please tell us how the theory of the lancet works. Here we first must agree before we can conclude.




9N314 or 9N314M

The Russians say not to use 9N314 warheads any longer, which are still in use by Ukraine. Like Ukraine, Russians use the modern 9N314M. So if DSB can prove 9N314M downed MH17, Russians are involved as possible perpetrators.

The main difference between warheads 9N314 and 9N314M is a piece of steel in the form of a bow-tie, also called the double T or butterfly:

http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

This bowtie is only to be found in 9N314M. Hence, the real fight is not about the BUK but about the bowties. Who can prove 9N314M involves the Russians, otherwise 9N314 could point to Ukraine.

DSB is a political institute. A scientific institute would provide the world with raw data of impacts on MH17. Then theories about bowties could be confirmed or falsified. Only on logical grounds we will refute the hypothesis of: ‘bowties found in MH17 as coming from the missile used’.

Time is running out and soon there will be no control on raw data of MH17 any longer. Now DSB already made an extra hole in the forward pressure bulkhead (the nose of MH17) inadvertently.

Bowtie evidence of DSB is very doubtful, since they only found two bowties and two cubes of (apparently) 9N314M. But their chemical analysis of aluminum (hull) and zirconium (windshield) on the bowties sticks to a qualitative assessment of the origin. It seems to be based on face value with the naked eye through a microscope.
Now the problem is the probability of bowties in the cockpit (p(b)) is dependent on – or conditional on – the passage of bowties through the cockpit hull (p(bh)) or through the windshield.

In theory we also could accept the passage of fillers through the hull (p(fh)), because they correlate perfectly with bowties. Then, DSB has to prove the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words DSB has to prove butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull.

That’s to say, fillers are acceptable as stand in for bowties only if we don’t know how many bowties are to be expected. That’s why we need exact quantities. And because the number of bowties projected perpendicular on the cockpit hull – from a very short distance of only 3 meter – is exactly known, we demand full proof of butterflies in the hull.

If DSB cannot prove this conditional probability > 0 – for example because pieces of the roof are lost or missing(?) – then the single bowtie in the captain’s body must have penetrated in a different way.

Because DSB refuses to give the raw data of holes in the cockpit hull in a orderly and systematic manner, we use logical reasoning to debunk 9N314M. We think warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. What not means we attach to 9N314.

DSB report Appendix X

Report no NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1


Page 60

6.17 Matching modeled and observed fragmentation damage
[The best match was obtained for a detonation location of the warhead of 0.25 metres ahead of the aircraft’s nose, 3 metres to the left of, and 3.7 metres above the tip of the nose.]

Like this: TNO report appendix Y, page 7:http://tinyurl.com/pyrhmr2)





[The missile was travelling at a speed of approximately 700 m/s in the opposite direction to the direction of flight of the aircraft [azimuth 118], approaching 7 degrees from below and 20 degrees from the right [azimuth 318] with respect to the aircraft forward axis.] (like this: http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma)



The requirement of perpendicularity 

Surface normal

But if a BUK was launched from Snizhne with azimuth 318 dgr and elevation 7 dgr and the warhead was a cylinder, then a lot of shrapnel was projected more or less perpendicular on the cockpit hull.





This because the distance between warhead and aircraft was only three meters and they were rather parallel. Hence one side of the warhead, a slice of about 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder was exactly parallel with the hull of MH17:

http://tinyurl.com/nuvn9t8






http://tinyurl.com/qffwbg6







Note the slice exactly corresponds to the theory of 9N314M: On the left side we only see bowties and fillers and on the right side we see bowties, fillers and cubes:

http://tinyurl.com/oxxy56l





But it is very sad no roofparts were found in the wreckage:

http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg






http://tinyurl.com/pcwlxvw









No swirls or tumblings

As said, about such a short distance no swirls or tumblings of shrapnel are to be expected, since thrust of the blast is much stronger than aerodynamic drag and relative velocity. Then in a statistical sense we may forget the side views of bowties, fillers and cubes since they will not have turned in this short distance. But this means most shrapnel entered the hull as we see their upper side on the warhead:

http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg




Hence we expect most shrapnel elements to have made holes in the cockpit hull with their topside. So in this restricted area we definitely demand butterflies in the hull:

Now, this is definitely not true as Eugene reports:



Guys, this is how striking elements behave. An expert opinion. Almost.
The detonation front is reasonably uniform, true. It is uniform enough to strictly confine the flying striking elements in the sectors. Junk does fly everywhere, but the striking elements never fly, say, forwards or backwards. However, the uniformity of the detonation front is far not sufficient to push the SEs in a parallel fashion. So they *do* spin. But there is a stronger reason for why they spin. The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound. When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).
(There exists another physical argument for why the striking elements do spin, which I omit).
As to leaving the appropriately shaped holes. There are three things at play here: surface normal, velocity vector and SE orientation. Two facts to know:
-A hole will be distinguishable as bow-tie if the orientation is appropriately aligned wrt the velocity vector. Surface normal plays little role here. This has been shown by AA. Intuitively this can be explained in the following way: because of such a high speed SEs cut through aluminium like through butter, the incident angle plays little role. The hole can be quite elongated but it will still be a clear-cut bow-tie hole.
-The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector. Surface normal here is irrelevant.
Thus most bow-tie SEs will not leave bow-tie holes, but some will do. Statistics helps us here. As there are a lot of SEs, there should be a reasonable number of bow-tie holes visible even on the limited area of the gathered wreckage. Which are, of course, not there.

Very interesting but it is not yet known how far the theory is true.


Eugene:

2: Why is parallel fashion needed because parallelity is already formed by the cone caused by the velocity of the missile?

Do you mean spinning is needed to average out deviating directions by means of centrifugal forces? To prevent Striking elements (Se’s) will cluster in parallelity? Then we must discriminate clustering – what is ineffective – from parallelity. So spinning mainly prevents clustering and gives no parallelity. As a result of spinning the SEs their velocities get perturbed: they lose velocity by spinning. That’s the price to prevent clustering. That’s what I understand.

Are Se’s spinning all the way to the target? Surface normal (perpendicularity) seems not to play a big role in AA’s static experiment. But I think it is better to control this condition on MH17.
This I do not understand: [The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector.] This seems to be the main reason of not seeing bowties on the hull.

 Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm // Reply
Eugene:
“When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).”
Interesting that you should say that since TNO (appendix y DSB report) appear to base their findings on the pattern of hits on MH17. They talk of the frag pattern created by the warhead whose arrangement of striking elements is similar to the construction of a wooden barrel. They use the analogy of the circumference and staves of the wooden barrel and that similar arrangement of striking elements would be projected onto the target. Also they use the distance (pitch) between hits by the same type of striking elements, that were positioned together in the warhead, to determine the range, i.e. based on the divergence of the elements they estimated the distance between the warhead and a particular small area on the surface of MH17.
When one takes into consideration the limited area of damage that TNO used for their analysis (e.g. they appear to have only used the recovered starboard side cockpit roof and not other sections of the roof (?) – see page 18) then would “some regularity is still present” be sufficient for an accurate analysis of warhead position and orientation?
Especially I would question their stated azimuth angle of 27 degrees +/- 3 degrees (pages 21 and 22) since they appeared to only consider a limited area of damage on MH17.

 Basic Dimension // November 12, 2015 at 2:19 pm // Reply
Wind tunnel man:
[Interesting that you should say that since TNO (appendix y DSB report) appear to base their findings on the pattern of hits on MH17.]
Well thought. But both theories might be wrong. The theory of Eugene is intriguing but still looks experimental and the theory of DSB projects on a not existing reality, since they have no roof. The more we learn the less we know.

http://tinyurl.com/pc8evla





But we need some cockpit roof to falsify 9N314M.

http://tinyurl.com/qzhydqk




So, in this 50 degree area projected on the hull of MH17 we expect following measures:

To the left we expect to see:

Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM


To the right:

Cubes 8x8x5 MM
Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM


Hence, if there was a roof we could perfectly test the hypothesis (9N314M) for the restricted area of:

http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf







The warhead

Page 54:

6.12
Number and density of hits.

[The 9N314M warhead is composed of approximately 7800 preformed fragments of three different shapes which are arranged in two layers. A digital reconstruction of the 9N314M warhead fragment arrangement can be seen in Figure 50:]

http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg
http://tinyurl.com/q8uh4qa







http://tinyurl.com/ncmtkjs






[The inner layer consists of bowtie and filler fragments and spans the entire length of the warhead. The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of Figure 49:

http://tinyurl.com/p5kygsq





The number and density of hits on the wreckage of the cockpit is consistent with the number and density of hits expected from the detonation of a 9N314M warhead.]

Last remark has not yet been proven, as I asked NLR in the earlier comment.



What are the proportions of hits expected from detonation of a 9N314M warhead?

Following AA: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr),
9N314M has 7840 shrapnel elements:


Cubes (4100) + bowties (1870) + fillers (1870) = 7840

Calculation surface of different kinds of shrapnel:

Cubes 8×8= 64 x 4100 = 262400 MMSQ
Bowties 13×13= 169 x 1870 = 316030 MMSQ
Fillers 6×6= 36 x 1870 = 67320 MMSQ


(Bowties + fillers) – cubes = 383350 – 262400 = 120950

Cubes / (Bowties + fillers) = 262400/383350 = .68 = 70 %


This agrees with: ‘The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of figure 49.’

Hence, 32 % of bowties and fillers are lying free from cubes. And 68 %lies under cubes.

Now, we have an estimate for the ratio between shrapnel on the left and on the right, but not yet for the expected frequencies. For less than half the shrapnel goes to the aircraft.



What quantities are to be expected from the 50 degree projection?

As said earlier, we think 50/360 = 14%of the shrapnel comes nearly perpendicular on the plane:

http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

To the left we expect to see:

Bowties = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84
Fillers = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84


To the right:

Cubes = .14 x 4100 = 574
Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178


We definitely can expect 84 + 178 = 262 butterflies in our 50 degrees segment and there are no excuses. Presence of fillers is no longer sufficient. Bowties must be shown also.


How the wreck looks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNOX2O1cFQ


Now we all know DSB made a mess of the investigation. They waited 6 to 8 months with gathering the wreckage. Meanwhile a lot of wreckage has disappeared inexplicably. If journalists and mourning relatives of victims had not made pictures we would have lost a lot of evidence to falsify 9N314M.

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

http://tinyurl.com/nvc99fm





But we are very lucky to have saved some pictures of the roof on the left side of the plane and we have the left front windshield of the cockpit. 







 Wind tunnel man // October 19, 2015 at 11:48 am // Reply
The roof certainly wasn’t available to TNO because in their report it was unfortunately not included in their calculations using the Split-X software. Also we now have the added complication namely that the warhead may have been a older type than a 9N314M which would probably have created a different fragmentation spread pattern.





And guess what, it all falls directly within our 50 degree area, so in the rebound we can test the 9N314M hypothesis.





There can be NO escape for butterflies on the roof any longer. There are NO acute angles, NO ricochets and there is NO non-penetrating shrapnel. If there were bowties, they must have massively left butterfly impressions. And we know by what quantities.
All the preconditions are met and all obstacles have been removed. If not any butterflies are visible in the roof, 9N314M is definitely debunked.

http://tinyurl.com/n9q79c3











http://tinyurl.com/phagxf6






Falsifying 9N314M gave big problems, for our slice of 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder projected on the hull (the roof) seemed to be gone by the enormous bombardment. But fortunately the left front windshield covers half of the left side of our hypothesis: it must have let passed half of the bowties and half of the fillers, which quantities we estimate as 42 bowties and 42 fillers:

http://tinyurl.com/pa42zge













The results

The left side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

http://tinyurl.com/ofelwmp




http://tinyurl.com/q7xsmv7



The front windshield on the left side of the plane has been saved more or less:

http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u





http://tinyurl.com/jxplhkv






It has been quite possible to estimate the right quantities of fillers and bowties.

http://tinyurl.com/o3fb54r





http://tinyurl.com/oy6tnnf






http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u

http://tinyurl.com/nngv55z






http://tinyurl.com/q4r9o2t





Because the nearly perpendicular projection from the warhead on the plane contains 14%of the shrapnel, this means 84 bowties and 84 fillers have to give rather perfect images as holes on the plane at the left side. Half of that left side consists of the windshield. Following our estimation we expect 42 bowties and 42 fillers. But badly counting on the windshield gave an overestimation of 170 holes.

http://tinyurl.com/ncctzo3




Because we don’t know what impression bowties have to make in glass we conclude 9N314M has not been confirmed. 9N314M could be the true state of nature but has not been confirmed. It is not yet falsified.

The right side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

DSB report Page 57 of 279:

[Upper left hand cockpit fuselage (1)
A portion of the cockpit fuselage’s top section (STA236.5 to STA332.5) was located in the south-western region of site 1 (Figure 15). This part was not recovered. The fuselage showed evidence of perforation from the outside. The aft side of the fuselage skin was bent upwards and a number of formers and stringers were missing from the fuselage. The upper side of the fuselage showed traces of soot:]


http://tinyurl.com/ox73ruu







 Wind tunnel man // October 19, 2015 at 3:38 am // Reply
“Upper left hand cockpit fuselage top section. STA236.5 to 332.5. Many holes created by shrapnel. Also traces of soot. According DSB final report this part was not recovered. This part is indicated in red in the above image. Appendix X page 24 of the final report mentions this part as well. It states that ‘angle of ricochet damage on this piece was determined by using photographs.”

Between STA 236.5 and STA 287.5 there are numerous holes, beyond STA 287.5 there do appear to be signs of grazing (maybe ricochets) which would be consistent with the warhead being approximately level with the top of the main fuselage.


 Hector Reban // October 19, 2015 at 1:29 pm // Reply
TNO claims there is no frag damage from STA220 up till higher numbers, see paragraph 3.2.2 appendix Y. THis conclusion is based on a left cockpit roof panel, as I understand it.
Its one of the main reasons they discard the AA variables, because AA prdicts grazing damage further alang the longitudinal axis on the roof of the plane.





http://tinyurl.com/pg7tptm





http://tinyurl.com/zo5hs4t










http://tinyurl.com/z82xxdk





http://tinyurl.com/hzcy85w




http://tinyurl.com/j6dxy3j






On the right side we expect:

Cubes = .14 x 4100 = 574
Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178


The wreckage is from near the door so we might expect less shrapnel:

Cubes =  .14 x 4100 = 574
Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 bowties = 50 bowties
Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 fillers = 50 fillers


No bowties are detected in this 50%area. We know the holes butterflies must make on aluminum and therefore we must decide 9N314M is falsified.

The DSB research is based on wrong assumptions, tunnelvision twisted the facts. Then NLR and TWO pressed their scientific stamp on it. We cannot comment on 9N314 based on this investigation.


http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

Below are additional photos of this section. Maybe someone can find out the trajectory of fragments.




http://tinyurl.com/oqgvhcr






 Eugene // November 10, 2015 at 11:42 pm // Reply
Not trying to negate your work, but there is a much simpler way to show that the warhead was not a 9N314M. Just try to find holes on the wreckage that look like these: http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg

Remember that for Ukraine it would be very easy to plant the bow-tie fragments. They had exclusive access to the evidence material (wreckage, bodies) before passing it to the Dutch.

But it would be impossible for Ukraine to change the holes in the cockpit after they’ve been photographed on site.

 Basic Dimension // November 11, 2015 at 2:12 am // Reply

Eugene, thanks for your reaction and I agree for a part. But there are important differences:

[Not trying to negate your work, but there is a much simpler way to show that the warhead was not a 9N314M. Just try to find holes on the wreckage that look like these: http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg]

I know no butterfly holes were found. But your action does not create legal proof, for it only generalizes to the wreckage found. You forgot ‘missing’ wreckage, possibly effectively demolished by bowties. Then finding no butterfly holes could be seen as proof of bowties. And most part of the plane is still missing.

The difference is I am not pointing to bowties in the hull, but I prove they cannot be there if not found in this 50% region. Your action is only valid for the wreckage found, but my proof generalizes to “not found” wreckage.

Furthermore, your specimen (http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg) was not made under conditions which apply to MH17. Proponents of 9N314M will say failure to find butterfly holes in the hull is not unusual because holes can have all forms which may be caused by a lot of circumstances as relative velocity, acute angles and ricochets.

Therefore, I created an artificial way to prove no bowties were found in optimal circumstances of perpendicularity and bowtie impact on top side. But these are natural circumstances governing MH17.

So if not found under these created laboratory circumstances, nowhere on the wreckage of MH17 bowties are to be expected. I created legal proof because my findings generalize to the whole plane: I proved 9N314M cannot be the warhead used.

“I created legal proof because my findings generalize to the whole plane: I proved 9N314M cannot be the warhead used.”
no you proved nothing,except that your prone to wild and grandiose claims,
Bow -Tie frags were found period,simply claiming they are not is silly
claiming as proof of that the lack of clear bow-tie impressions in fuselage is also a non-runner,AA claim it was an ALL cubic frag warhead and seem blissfully unconcerned at lack off clear cubic impressions,this proves they do not even believe their own claims about bow-ties
Impressions on fuselage at 10km alt with added kinetic energy cannot be equated to a static arena test
  •  Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 4:12 pm // Reply
    RB2:
    “…Bow -Tie frags were found period,simply claiming they are not is silly
    claiming as proof of that the lack of clear bow-tie impressions in fuselage is also a non-runner,AA claim it was an ALL cubic frag warhead and seem blissfully unconcerned at lack off clear cubic impressions,this proves they do not even believe their own claims about bow-ties…”
    Only 2 fragments that possibly resembled bow-ties from a 9N314M warhead were mentioned in the DSB report. They claimed that due to re-solidified cockpit glass and/or aluminium deposits on their surfaces they must have originated from a source external to the aircraft. The Russians wanted the type of unalloyed steel to be matched to the unalloyed steel fragments used in 9N314M warheads but in the opinion of the Dutch, because the steel was of a low quality etc., any exercise in matching would be futile. However, since the Russian asked for this to done they obviously it thought would be a viable. Other questionable features and characteristics of the fragments were also raised by the Russians but it’s probably not necessary to go into those issues now.
    Regarding the “lack of clear bow-tie impressions in [the] fuselage” the Russians were of the opinion that no penetrations were made by bow-tie shaped fragments. The only evidence, according to the Dutch, for bow-tie shaped fragments having been used were the 2 alleged bow-tie fragments found in MH17 (the cockpit and the captain’s body)and apparently on that basis alone they came to the conclusion that a 9N314M warhead was used.
    Is there a “lack of clear cubic impressions” on the skin of MH17?
    • The reason why unalloyed steel was not even attempted to be matched is given in the DSB report,made from different batches,different sources,different manufacturing locations and at different times,pointless to try and match them clearly
      bow-tie frags were found,in any court that is evidence,if ppl want to accuse the DSB or someone off tampering or faking evidence they should do so openly with cause.
      AA raised many points found to be erroneous,wrong on expected weight of bow-tie frag and wrong on nothing but pre-made frags could pierce engine cowling fully,these were all stated by them as an expert opinion and failed to stand up
      AA criteria for no/few bow-tie impressions also applies to all cubic 9N314 warhead which they state was the one used,going by their criteria many cubic holes will be visible as they predominate in the 9N314 warhead,they don’t hence criteria is flawed
      What ppl are doing is trying to use an AA claim consisting only of a power pint slide show and a incomplete video to counter the DSB report without holding them to the same standard,this is disappointing
      •  Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 7:10 pm //
        Sorry I’m trying to take a neutral view: the Dutch concluded that it was probably a 9N314M warhead and the Russians disputed that conclusion. The Russians believed that if it was a BUK missile that brought down MH17 then it would have to have been an out-dated 9N314 warhead; the Dutch concluded from their findings, research and simulated tests that it was probably a 9N314M warhead.
        People can read both the DSB report and the A-A report, listen and watch the videos produced by both parties and look at the photographic evidence of the damage, that can be accessed on the internet, and conclude who has the most persuasive argument.
        Some of the evidence (or perhaps a large proportion of the evidence) has not been made public and on that basis, from the evidence that we have access to, the probability that a 9N314M was used by excluding other possible weapons perhaps still needs to be questioned?
        Personally I’m not convinced that it was probably a 9N314M warhead that detonated whilst on a heading away from the area south of Snizhne and in my opinion it was wrong of the DSB to infer that it was launched from rebel held territory.
        Regarding the topics of the dangers of flying over a war zone and the description of how the aircraft broke-up there certainly the DSB has made some very valid points and observations.

 Horst // November 11, 2015 at 6:47 am // Reply
Impressive work, Basic. But I think the hypothesis that the fragments do not turn and stay perpendicular seems odd to me. An explosion is a rather chaotic event and I see no reason why the forces on the fragment should be constantly well balanced during the exlosion.
1. If we allow arbitrary – or even some – rotation, the number of bow tie “holes” should be very few.
2. If we calculate relative velocity of fragments re the outer sheet it is further more improbable that a bow-tie frag produces a bow-tie hole (like in the AA experiment where there was no relative velocity)
During travelling through the aluminium sheet (approx. 2mm) which makes the lenght of “penetration” = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 mm the forward movement of the frag is still about estimated 4mm which covers a third of the bow tie “length” so that the hole completely looses its bow tie charcteristic.
In other words: I think that bow tie frags produce very view – if at all – bow tie holes in the dynamic scenario.
Therefore it is futile to concentrate on the holes. One should concentrate on the found frags. Which is very nice for the CT guys.


 Basic Dimension // November 11, 2015 at 11:01 am // ReplyHorst thanks for your reaction.

[An explosion is a rather chaotic event and I see no reason why the forces on the fragment should be constantly well balanced during the exlosion.]

'An explosion is a rather chaotic event' does not mean the initial power of the blast is already balanced by relative velocity in the first meters and first milliseconds. There is not spoken about 'constantly well balanced'.

The blast itself is not chaotic, it only looks chaotic. The power of the blast is much stronger than surrounding forces and that's why the behavior of fragments actually is very predictable in the first milliseconds, and within the first meters. Only thereafter will be a moment when bowties turn. Hence, arbitrary rotation of bowties is not on the agenda. Please show the model where this is possible and prove me the power of the blast is already balanced or even affected by relative velocity from the very start.
   
[2. If we calculate relative velocity of fragments re the outer sheet it is further more improbable that a bow-tie frag produces a bow-tie hole (like in the AA experiment where there was no relative velocity)]
 
Interesting hypotheses are formulated around conflicting powers of inner and outer blades of shrapnel but remember DSB has no roof to prove or even touch on their 9N314M theory.  DSB accidentally missed or could not retrieve the most important parts of the plane: the roof.
 
- In the AA experiment relative velocity was zero, but in the limit of time, given in the first milliseconds of the blast relative velocity is not that important. It's not AA who has to prove they are right, DSB has to prove AA is wrong by falsifying their experiment in a real shooting down of a plane.

- [During travelling through the aluminium sheet (approx. 2mm) which makes the lenght of “penetration” = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 mm the forward movement of the frag is still about estimated 4mm which covers a third of the bow tie “length” so that the hole completely looses its bow tie charcteristic.]

As you imply all parameters of impact are known, even the angle of impact, hence it must be possible to correct pictures of impact holes for kinds of shrapnel. Correction to perpendicularity.

-  [In other words: I think that bow tie frags produce very view – if at all – bow tie holes in the dynamic scenario. Therefore it is futile to concentrate on the holes. One should concentrate on the found frags. Which is very nice for the CT guys.]

No you forgot to falsify the AA-experiment in a dynamic scenario in the first place.

 Antidyatel // November 11, 2015 at 11:18 am // Reply
Horst, I think that Basic assumes that cylindrical charge can provide quite uniform outward pressure.
For length to diameter proportions above 2 for cylindrical charges this assumption is quite reasonable. You can look through declassified report from 1982 from USA called “Blast effects from cylindrical explosive charges”. Unless I misunderstood their findings. However, the concern can be that the region considered is bombarded by bowties from secondary layer. Meaning there are cubes in the outer layer. Interaction with those cubes will likely cause rotation. But I’m not sure about it. Also, the same report describes secondary shockwaves fro such charges that are fast enough to catch up with flying shrapnel.
But in general I tend to agree with Basic that expected damage is not there.
There is also the issue of presumed constant speed for the shrapnel in DSB report. That is not true, as there is initial acceleration period. That shifts the effective explosion spot in assumption of constant and uniform acceleration. However if acceleration is not constant and uniform a very different damage pattern should be expected in comparison with constant speed and constant acceleration. It affects how shrapnel ejected at different angles from high speed missile changes the trajectory relative to the moving plane

 Horst // November 11, 2015 at 11:55 am // Reply

Basic,
[Please show the model where this is possible and prove me the power of the blast is already balanced or even affected by relative velocity from the very start.]
I never implied my point 1) has something to do with relative velocity. I just can’t imagine a blast that leads to NO rotation at all. But I am no expert. It just seems counter intuitive.
[No you forgot to falsify the AA-experiment in a dynamic scenario in the first place.]
Reversal of burden of proof here. I would say it is a no-brainer that in a dynamic scenario bow-tie frags most probably do not produce bow-tie shaped holes. AA did not even make a statement that this is the case. The just flooded the world with misleading information IMHO.
http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zwdd7s.jpg
Imagine a Bow Tie frg approaching the plane hull.
When it leaves the hull (assumption: no deformation) it travels 4 mm along the hull, so bow-tie hole is gone.
All “non-flat” scenarios are surely different. But I cannot think of any resulting bow-tie holes like in the static scenario.
What needs to be done is find a spot where the frags penetrate perependiculary (taking plane speed into account) to the plane surface AND the frags reach the hull flatly .
I do not see such a point in both (S an Z scenarios), so no bow tie holes.

 Horst // November 11, 2015 at 12:34 pm // Reply
Let me try it in an easier way:
1. you say the blast does not create rotation of the bow ties. Let’s take this as a given. So the “H” surfaces keeps being parallel to the missile path.
2. The resulting velocity vector of the fragment in referenced to air aims forward.
3. The velocity vector is never perpendicular to the “H” surface.
As a clean bow tie hole needs correct orientation of frag AND perpendicular punch there won’t be any “clean” bow tie holes.
(For simplicity speed of plane ignored)


 Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 1:51 pm // Reply
Horst:
Even a tumbling/rotating bow-tie shaped fragment can produce a distinctive penetration and even if it’s not tumbling/rotating it can make a distinctive penetration when impacting a surface at an acute angle. The form of the bow-tie shape may not be imparted to the target but it will cut through the surface in a distinctive manner and will probably not leave a clean square or elongated rectangular hole. The exception being if it’s flat 13mm x 8.2mm face happens to be the leading face when it impacts the target and then it would create a rectangular or elongated rectangular hole. Also if it was spinning really fast then it would tend to drill a hole rather than punch a hole.

Wind tunnel man: agreed. I see you agree with my point that there are no / few bow tie holes to be expected.

 Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 2:34 pm // Reply
Horst:
“Wind tunnel man: agreed. I see you agree with my point that there are no / few bow tie holes to be expected.”

Absolutely – to determine whether or not the aircraft was hit by bow-tie shaped fragments one has to look at the nature of the penetrations and not just their superficial appearance from one angle.

However from the photographs taken at varying angles of the penetrations and grazing marks on MH17, that I have seen, there doesn’t seem to be any conclusive evidence of bow-tie shaped fragments and 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler cube shaped fragments having been involved.

 Basic Dimension // November 11, 2015 at 10:13 pm // Reply

Horst:
[As a clean bow tie hole needs correct orientation of frag AND perpendicular punch there won’t be any “clean” bow tie holes.]
Of course I meant nearly perpendicular, but why don’t we look at the facts, for the pictures of the roof show very neat holes. Hence, characteristic bowtie holes were very much possible. That’s the proof.
What I do not understand is why DSB proudly presented their 9N314H model with two blades of shrapnel without any roof to proof. They have no roof.
And from the left front windshield and the pictured roof plates nothing refers to this elegant model. This 9N314H model projected onto a not existing roof is completely unsubstantiated. 9N314H is complete science fiction.

 Basic Dimension // November 11, 2015 at 11:36 pm // Reply
Wind tunnel man:
[Absolutely – to determine whether or not the aircraft was hit by bow-tie shaped fragments one has to look at the nature of the penetrations and not just their superficial appearance from one angle.]

To disconfirm 9N314M, I kept the angle of bowties constant by only looking at a rectangle of raw data on the roof. Because this prevents ricochets and uncontrolled angles the ‘nature of penetrations’ is significantly restricted. And inspecting the nice and neat holes in the roof wreckage you must agree that the ‘nature of penetrations’ has been mastered.

 Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 1:15 am // Reply
Basic Dimension:
Yes there are plenty of photographs of the roof sections and none seem to have the impression of a bow-ties nor the deformed edges to the rectangular holes that one might expect if impacted by bow-tie shaped fragments. In particular with the “not recovered” upper, forward, port side roof section (the one with peeled back and curved skin) it’s fairly easy to match entry holes and exit holes through the skin. Also the direction of probable cube shaped fragment penetrations from STA 236.5 to STA 287.5 (see slide 8 from the A-A report) is very clearly shown.

 Eugene // November 11, 2015 at 11:54 pm // Reply
Guys, this is how striking elements behave. An expert opinion. Almost.
The detonation front is reasonably uniform, true. It is uniform enough to strictly confine the flying striking elements in the sectors. Junk does fly everywhere, but the striking elements never fly, say, forwards or backwards. However, the uniformity of the detonation front is far not sufficient to push the SEs in a parallel fashion. So they *do* spin. But there is a stronger reason for why they spin. The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound. When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).
(There exists another physical argument for why the striking elements do spin, which I omit).
As to leaving the appropriately shaped holes. There are three things at play here: surface normal, velocity vector and SE orientation. Two facts to know:
-A hole will be distinguishable as bow-tie if the orientation is appropriately aligned wrt the velocity vector. Surface normal plays little role here. This has been shown by AA. Intuitively this can be explained in the following way: because of such a high speed SEs cut through aluminium like through butter, the incident angle plays little role. The hole can be quite elongated but it will still be a clear-cut bow-tie hole.
-The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector. Surface normal here is irrelevant.
Thus most bow-tie SEs will not leave bow-tie holes, but some will do. Statistics helps us here. As there are a lot of SEs, there should be a reasonable number of bow-tie holes visible even on the limited area of the gathered wreckage. Which are, of course, not there.

 Basic Dimension // November 12, 2015 at 2:22 am // Reply
Eugene:
2: Why is parallel fashion needed because parallelity is already formed by the cone caused by the velocity of the missile?
Do you mean spinning is needed to average out deviating directions by means of centrifugal forces? To prevent Striking elements (Se’s) will cluster in parallelity? Then we must discriminate clustering – what is ineffective – from parallelity. So spinning mainly prevents clustering and gives no parallelity. As a result of spinning the SEs their velocities get perturbed: they lose velocity by spinning. That’s the price to prevent clustering. That’s what I understand.
Are Se’s spinning all the way to the target? Surface normal (perpendicularity) seems not to play a big role in AA’s static experiment. But I think it is better to control this condition on MH17.
This I do not understand: [The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector.] This seems to be the main reason of not seeing bowties on the hull.

 Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 7:35 pm // Reply
Basic Dimension:

I was using the “best match” azimuth of 27 degrees used by TNO on page 21 Table 5.1 of appendix Y. I took this to be the horizontal angle of the missile’s longitudinal axis relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. To get penetrations or grazing marks at a points near to door 1L the minimum angle of the front part of the spread, relative to the missile’s horizontal axis and direction of travel, would need to be approx 27 degrees, i.e. the shrapnel would need to be travelling in almost the opposite direction to the aircraft.

To get penetrations just aft of the forward pressure bulkhead the rear part of the frag spread (maximum angle) would have to be slightly greater than 90 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the missile (this would give a total frag spread angle from front to back of more than 62 degrees.) This is of course assuming that the warhead detonated in the position that TNO gave in their “best match”.

But the angles I’ve used are for an aircraft that is not moving. If the aircraft is moving toward the warhead then the effective total angle of the spread will increase, i.e. the distance between forward penetrations and aft penetrations will increase dependant on the speed of the aircraft relative to the shrapnel speed and range distances. Only a static aircraft can give us the exact total spread angle or alternatively we can calculate the total spread angle from the penetration positions on a moving aircraft as per Mick West’s graphic.


 Basic Dimension // November 13, 2015 at 4:28 pm // Reply
Wind tunnel man [November 13, 2015 at 21:21 pm]

Sorry, it’s not my profession and I did not understand directly what you mean. But now I see frac spread of 72 degrees calculated by Mick West for a launch from Snizhne is just too wide for frac damage further backwards on the port side of the roof back to door L1 (STA332). I also see it is a dynamic display.

So 72 degrees is not sufficient to reach door L1 and the angle must be somewhat sharper. The bat wings must have a somewhat smaller front angle of maybe 60 degrees. And since the angle of the wings is changed the aft part frac spread now misses the starboard side of the cockpit completely as actually happened.

So indeed, a frac spread of 27 degrees certainly covers door L1. But that’s way too conservative for this covers the whole left side of the plane. Maybe 50 degrees already will do for L1.

There are limits in creating a sharper angle between the bat wings because then the aft part of the spread misses the cockpit. And so you reasoned a launch from Snizhne must be impossible.

[“5: As said earlier I prefer a launch site between S and Z at 45 degrees.”
Guess that would put the launch site approx south-southwest of Torez just inside the area defined by the DSB if the missile was on a heading of approx 343 degrees. That angle of interception would possibly match  the shrapnel distribution on the fuselage but would the penetration angles match?]

With 45 degrees frac spread damage comes further on starboard, what is not the case. So no, in the second instance I have no arguments to discard Zaroshchenske.

 Wind tunnel man // November 14, 2015 at 3:35 am // Reply
Basic Dimension:

Almaz Antey emphasised the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread when a 9M38(M1) missile carrying a 9N314M warhead is detonated when travelling at speeds of more than 600m/s. When detonated at that speed 42% of the total payload of striking elements, in terms of weight and energy, is directed in a narrow area approximately between 75 to 95 degrees to the missile’s longitudinal axis – this is the scalpel core of the spray zone.

If a 9N314M warhead is detonated when not moving (0m/s) then the scalpel/lancet core does not form adequately because the varying speeds of the fragments within the frag spread are not brought into a concentrated radial region. If one looks at A-A’s IL-86 static test there is a certain amount of fragment concentration (slide 56 of their presentation) but if the missile had been moving then the shrapnel would probably have sliced through the IL-86 target like a surgeon’s scalpel due to it’s increased concentration at that range.

We don’t have much detail about 9N314 warheads, only that they don’t contain bow-tie shaped fragments and cube shaped filler fragments, but perhaps one can assume that they have similar scalpel/lancet characteristics. In the case of MH17 the greatest concentration of shrapnel was directed from above and from the port side of the nose into the port side of the cockpit obliterating the port side windows, window frames and the roof immediately above them. Further aft where the concentration of shrapnel is less one would expect to see clear indications of their shape in the aircraft’s skin. We do and they are cubes, not bow-ties. However in the IL-86 test there are bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of the aircraft where the concentration of penetrations is less.

Bow-tie strike elements. Why it lose shape even before penetration.

Annex 1:

Warhead 9N314M has 2 layers of strike element.
Inner layer contain 1870 bow-tie heavy strike elements with 1870 filler strike elements between them.



Outer layer contain 4100 square strike elements.
Layers isolated from explosive filling, between them and from open air with textile.
During explosion inner layer work as liner and prevent gas leaking at first moment. Elements of inner layer have outnourmos thermal and pressure stress from explosion from one side. At same time inner layer exchange energy with outer layer, it is adding stress to inner elements from another side.
As result bow-tie elements start to lose shape and receive oblateness.
In extreme cause bow-tie elements can even lose shape completely and decay on 2 debris. It happen if bow-tie element situated in area with highest pressure - middle of warhead (in really this area start approx. at 1/4 and continue to 3/4 of warhead length).
Very interesting why inner layer contain bow-tie elements, instead of old design with only square elements (heavy and light).
Technically, square elements have very good penetration on high speed - sharp edge can "cut" target material with lower density. Also square have best ratio weight/size. But warhead 9N314M lose heavy strike elements - square, during development. Why it happen despite on square penetartion?
As im said - inner layer work as liner for outer layer during explosion. Liner prevent gas leaking during time when elements receive acceleration from explosive force as gas pressure per square. Very important on this stage prevent destruction (decay or mis-shape with holes between nearby elements) for elements which isolate gas. Previous design with square elements reveal a problem - square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal - direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere. Spheres have holes for gas leaking between them, also shpere have lesser penetration. Outnormous pressure during explosion can even destroy square on a few debris which can be too small for penetrate armored targets (main idea of heavy strike elements is penetration of armored targets like close-support war plane Su-25 or A-10).

6379e3baa535a7977710e9b1d2441e4c. 

All these troubles solved with new design exchanged square heavy elements for bow-tie elements.
Bow-tie shape still have weight and sharp edges but more protected from sphere exploding (bow-tie have lesser length of edges so density not so low). That mean layer with bow-tie transmit more energy to outer layer before gas leaking play role. Also bow-tie elements even when decay on a few debris produce only one main big debris with little losing of weight or two debrises with almost half of weigth each. This is enough for designed effect - penetration of armored targets.
How good bow-tie layer as liner? Outer layer receive speed up to 2400 m/s. It have only a few difference from Gurney equation fragment speed (maximum speed which can receive strike element for warhead case shape, weight ratio, explosive) near 3000-3100 m/s.
For example, inner layer with bow-tie lose some many energy in exchange and after it receive additional force from explosion only when gas-leaking happen so bow-tie strike elements receive almost half of inner layer speed - near 1200-1800 m/s.
Conclusion - bow-tie elements will lose shape in most causes so Almaz-Antey slide with typical hole is manipulation and lie.

Last edited: Oct 15, 2015

ad_2015, Oct 15, 2015


Annex 2:



Almaz-Antey accidentally give very good info about bow-tie strike elements. Need just pay attention to their slides.
First slide show typical damage from bow-tie strike elements which AA trying to find on planes.

83b107d1ce402bf18ad1b663a0cd8269.



Green circle - strike element before explosion.
Blue circle - strike element after explosion.
Red circle - hole in aluminium target.
And this manipulation!
Look how slightly damaged bow-tie strike element after explosion and penetration. It happen because Almaz-Antey used specific engineering tool for study high speed penetrations called light-gas gun!
Construction of this gun prevent damage to accelerated object (compared with warhead explosion) since explosion pressure and temperature received by rupture disk in high-pressure coupler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun#/media/File:Light-gas_gun.svg
So bow-tie DONT LOSS SHAPE and leave accurate hole same as initial strike element.
Another story is
Second slide
 

5a44aae4544928ab3bc9bc8e116e8e36.

have bow-tie strike elements AFTER EXPLOSION.
Im marked 2 rows:
1 row contain 3 strike elements which save initial shape. But look how different they look with compare to almost untouched strike element from previous slide!
2 row contain 7 strike elements which mis-shaped and cannot leave specific hole.
Conclusion: 70% of heavy bow-tie strike elements lose their shape before hitting target!
Attention: this deformation is result of explosion! Strike elements dont penetrate plane skin and construction but removed from special TRAP which save objects from mechanic deformation.
On this slide AA manipulated with photo of holes - they did very low scale photos of holes so we cannot find specific holes.
And last manipulation is static experimentation. Without vector adding of speed (inital speed of strike elements, speed of missile and speed of target) fragments of warhead receive different speed and coming to plane surface under angles close to ideal (perpendicular to strike elements surface) because warhead dont moving! It completely change hole shape!



It is extremely unlikely poor DSB was not in the position to investigate roof plates. They could have been investigated until the last day of publication of their report as an attachment.

It is extremely unlikely a research institute waits so many months with field research that they first wrote the headlines of their report.

All this must mean they did not expect or believe to find bowties in the hull of MH17.

It is nonsense and ridiculous that the plates would fall apart by construction on the metal structure.

Why not taken the immanent conclusion they did not want to investigate the roof? They must have inspected the pictures of the roof in a very early stage and then suddenly the plates disappeared. Do you think inhabitants used the plates for their sheds?

There is no single credible aspect in this whole story. And after the report has been pushed through our throat suddenly roof pictures come loose.

In the rebound it seems someone is promoting 9N314M in a silent action with ‘new’ photos of roof plates. We await the first bowties.

And in the rebound someone suddenly comes with an unproven EFIS device. But without the physical device we cannot investigate this case. Are we being manipulated to 9M314N without any proof? Is this all a  political maneuver by JIT?

 Wind Tunnel Man // December 29, 2015 at 11:13 pm // Reply

Basic Dimension:

It’s like somebody has used a shotgun at short range and blasted away the center of the target. The evidence we are trying to work with is mainly the peripheral damage away from the center of the target. We can certainly study images of that peripheral damage and come to probable conclusions which, in many respects, the DSB failed to do adequately.
I’ve seen images of MH17 parts piled up in sheds and outdoors near to the crash sites and whether or not all of it has been collected is probably no. One thing is known and that is the Ukrainians did fire artillery and grad rockets into the crash site area and that definitely hampered the initial investigation. The local people of the Donbass did the best they could under the circumstances but I certainly would not wish to accuse them of tampering with or faking evidence.

Just a note most if not all of you are misusing the term Shrapnel Shrapnel are balls or material suspended in a resin matrix then propelled out of the front of the shell without rupturing the casing These balls continue onward to the target, spreading out in a cone-shaped pattern..like a shot gun This is not what happened here as being discussed ( i did not read every contribution The missile being spoken about here is a fragmentation weapon containing over 8k of preformed objects over 2.6k or thereabouts Bow tie and the rest square Withe the explosion these “disperse” randomly It is notable only 3 have been retrieved. The missile of any of the “BUK” series are designed to normally detonate above the target. In the case of this 777 fuselage it is unlikely I think there would be ricochet as such given that the Fuselage in aluminum The possibility of ricochet in this case in unlikely due to the comparatively soft skin Surface is one of the reasons for the common firearms safety rule “Never shoot at a flat, hard surface.” The angle of fragment departure, both vertically and  horizontally, is difficult to calculate or predict and one can only assume the spread unless done with a live experiment which AA have done. I basically just jumped in to clear up the misuse of the shrapnel terminology

 Basic Dimension // January 14, 2016 at 12:08 pm // Reply

Davie Macdonald:

You said:

[Shrapnel are balls or material suspended in a resin matrix then propelled out of the front of the shell without rupturing the casing]

We know matrix is classified into three groups: Polymer matrix, metal matrix and ceramic matrix. And these resin comes under soft polymer matrix composites. Will this resin matrix let shrapnel rotate or will it translate? If translated perfect butterflies in the hull are to be expected on 3 meter within 0.0015 seconds.

You said:

[The angle of fragment departure, both vertically and horizontally, is difficult to calculate or predict and one can only assume the spread unless done with a live experiment which AA have done.]

A-A says shrapnel will not ricochet with angles greater than 30 degrees and this is what A-A predicts, a random blur:

http://tinyurl.com/za4g47a

But we also know the angle will be perpendicular to the trajectory of the missile so the spread on the surface normal rectangle of the hull can be predicted exactly:

http://tinyurl.com/npx2ql4
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
http://tinyurl.com/z7v5gg8

It can be determined exactly how many bowties, fillers and squares are to be expected on this surface normal area:

To the left of this rectangle we expect to see:

Bowties = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84
Fillers = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84

To the right:

Squares =  .14 x 4100 = 574
Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178

We definitely can expect 84 + 178 = 262 butterflies in our 50 degrees segment and there are no excuses.

As you might know DSB also thinks the pattern on the warhead will be replicated exactly on the target. What is your opinion?

http://tinyurl.com/oxxy56l

For this replication on the hull it does not matter if shrapnel translates or rotates.

You said:

[Shrapnel are balls or material suspended in a resin matrix then propelled out of the front of the shell without rupturing the casing.]

On this blog we have a dispute if shrapnel translates or rotates after the blast, what depends on the resistance of the casing, the uniformity of the blast and its echo on the other side of the casing. What is your opinion?

This is a viewpoint on this site:

[However, the uniformity of the detonation front is far not sufficient to push the SEs[Striking Elements] in a parallel fashion. So they *do* spin. But there is a stronger reason for why they spin. The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound. When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).]

If only translating there must be seen a lot of perfect ‘butterflies’ in the hull of MH17, what seems not the case:

http://tinyurl.com/jxplhkv

 Basic Dimension // January 15, 2016 at 11:30 pm //
Eugene:
[To recap:
-Detonation point wrong (to fit the Buk theory).
-No bowtie holes observed on the skin, but three bowties planted.
-Fragments hit the cockpit at a much lower speed that that of a Buk.
PS: waiting for opinion of people familiar with explosion damages/ballistics]

I am not familiar with explosion damages/ballistics but it all seems not that difficult. Formulas are a form of human thinking, what means in the end they always must be transformed into intuitively felt truth. So, if I don’t understand, your formulas must be wrong.

The fact no bowtie holes were found in the hull or windshield does not mean bowties are planted. It only means in a criminal investigation bowties unproven came through the hull or windshield.
But in a normal accident they would have been accepted as proof of 9N314M. Consequently 9N314M cannot be confirmed along these lines. And remember, fillers also do not meet this conditional probability. BTW, it is remarkable fillers in the windshields were not investigated.

This is a very good and inspiring analysis:

[The physical reason for this effect is the following: on a high hitting speed the interaction time of a projectile and a target is smaller than on a slow hitting speed, allowing less target material to get involved in the process. Therefore on high speeds there will be less bending and tearing, and the shape of the hole will match the the shape of the projectile better. On a slow speed, on the other hand, the elastic propagation will have an opportunity to distribute the energy wider (i.e. the phonons will bounce off more and reach further, for you physicists out there) and thus a greater area of the target will participate in the interaction.]

But now a complete mathematical model must be built which shows BUK has been unable to make these holes. The distance to the detonation point must be variable. Hence, it must be shown the speed of BUK fragments is too high to cause this bent and torn holes:

http://tinyurl.com/jxplhkv

> “significantly different situation”
The speed of fragments for the real situation would be greater by only around 6%. That’s not a significant difference.
And, if anything, a greater speed of impact only has the effect that the hole contours match those of the projectile better. That’s because on a higher speed the interaction time is shorter, allowing the energy to propagate for shorter distance. This may not be the best explanation; I’d give you examples if I was not typing on a phone.


 sotilaspassi // April 19, 2016 at 6:22 pm // Reply
There can be very few holes when most of the skin was blown away, unlike in A-A fake demo.
But still, there are tens of suitable holes. Also A-A agreed on this in spring 2015 (before they were ordered to lie in another way).

 admin // April 19, 2016 at 6:30 pm // Reply
@ Sotilaspassi: do you have a link to the statement of AA that says that AA found holes which could have been caused by bow-tie shaped fragments?
Like a link to a video of a AA presentation and time into the video where this is said.

 sotilaspassi // April 20, 2016 at 9:20 am // Reply
I think they found boutie and filler made holes:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wUVJHS3R1enU5clU
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wNFFJbEVaOGNndzg
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wNk5qamZFd2tmbFk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wVG9remtJVmh0SUk
(no time to check the video again, but A-A seemed 100% sure it was M1, until they were told to tell another story)

Sotilaspassi:
It is not the point that it could be bowtie holes (13x13x8.2 mm) from 9N314M, but it must be very clear it cannot be also squares (13x13x8 mm) from 9N314. So Almaz Antey can be perfectly right it could be bowtie holes, but at the same time the requirement of conditional probability is not met in this criminal case. In a normal crash situation we would have accepted bowties immediately.
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr







De Dubbelspion van MH17

    http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/02/de-dubbelspion-van-mh17.html


    Motieven neerhalen MH17

    http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/01/motieven-neerhalen-mh17.html




    cc-by-nc-sa






    This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment