PRC/PLAN Laser and Rail Gun Development Thread

[Quickie]

It's just the disturbance and/or heat friction of the movement of the shell through the air and the tiny bits of dust floating in the air.

The camera is not at a high enough frame rate to be able to see a true slow motion footage shell pass through the air and into the target and to have everything explode and appear in a sensible sequence so it looks like the target explodes before the streak behind the shell appears.

But in reality it's what a normal high speed kinetic projectile looks like. It's really not that exotic

Actually in this case, the camera did capture the explosion before the yellow streak appeared - which should be what remained of the projectile. That is what I was trying to convey to you, but without success it seems. You could go back to the video footage and see it frame by frame to be sure.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Actually in this case, the camera did capture the explosion before the yellow streak appeared - which should be what remained of the projectile. That is what I was trying to convey to you, but without success it seems. You could go back to the video footage and see it frame by frame to be sure.

so let ask you the same question I asked
Bltizo
58 minutes ago

what is that yellow smoke please?

(above is #8 from what you posted Today at 7:50 AM
)

'what's the yellow smoke?'

 

[Quickie]

so let ask you the same question I asked
Bltizo
58 minutes ago
'what's the yellow smoke?'

Smoke trail of what remained of the projectile?

 

[subotai1]

so let ask you the same question I asked
Bltizo
58 minutes ago
'what's the yellow smoke?'

Well, its not a laser. You cannot see those with a human eye or camera without the right wavelength filter.

More than likely its one of two things. Either, its the shell moving through air and because of the slow frame-rate of the camera, its showing up as a blur

Or (and this is much more rare), the air disturbed by the shell is creating a lensing (light bending) effect that is bending the light in front of and behind the shell trail creating an illusion of light.

But, no laser...

 

[vesicles]

what is that yellow smoke please?

(above is #8 from what you posted Today at 7:50 AM
)

It's swamp gas reflecting sun light. And it just so happened that a Bigfoot was farting nearby. And the Road Runner was escaping from the vehicle that was being destroyed.

Jokes aside, that cannot be lasers. No, not a chance. Laser, as its name implies, is super focused. Even IF it's diffused enough to be visible from the side, it should be an extremely smooth and fine line. And in most cases, laser beams are so focused that you can't see anything from the sides. Think of a laser pointer...

 

[Blitzo]

Actually in this case, the camera did capture the explosion before the yellow streak appeared - which should be what remained of the projectile. That is what I was trying to convey to you, but without success it seems. You could go back to the video footage and see it frame by frame to be sure.

Yes I've read your post but I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to convey in your reply #44 in response to my post #42

I mean it's all well and good to try and describe what happens in the footage, but the camera is obviously insufficiently high quality and insufficiently high frame rate to show what actually happens.

i.e.: the footage we have seems to show the truck exploding spontaneously and then immediately after we see the line of flash and smoke of the projectile piercing into it, making it seem like the truck exploded before the projectile struck it.
but in reality, if we had a camera which was closer and operating at a much higher frame rate we would likely see the kinetic projectile fly into the truck, causing it to explode, and also see the path of the kinetic projectile behind the projectile itself being disrupted and interefered with its kinetic energy and air disturbance/friction, causing a streak of the "flash" and "smoke" behind it.


So that's why I'm saying that trying to overanalyze the footage we have is a bit meaningless because it's not good enough quality to show what actually happened.

 

[by78]

For the love of god, it's an artillery round.

And no, that blinding object in the sky at high noon is not an UFO.

What more is there to talk about?

 

[no_name]

Yellow streak may be vaporised jet of metal fragments from the truck trailing behind the projectile remains.

 

[Quickie]

Yes I've read your post but I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to convey in your reply #44 in response to my post #42

I mean it's all well and good to try and describe what happens in the footage, but the camera is obviously insufficiently high quality and insufficiently high frame rate to show what actually happens.

i.e.: the footage we have seems to show the truck exploding spontaneously and then immediately after we see the line of flash and smoke of the projectile piercing into it, making it seem like the truck exploded before the projectile struck it.
but in reality, if we had a camera which was closer and operating at a much higher frame rate we would likely see the kinetic projectile fly into the truck, causing it to explode, and also see the path of the kinetic projectile behind the projectile itself being disrupted and interefered with its kinetic energy and air disturbance/friction, causing a streak of the "flash" and "smoke" behind it.


So that's why I'm saying that trying to overanalyze the footage we have is a bit meaningless because it's not good enough quality to show what actually happened.

I mean it's all well and good to try and describe what happens in the footage, but the camera is obviously insufficiently high quality and insufficiently high frame rate to show what actually happens.

The fact of the matter is, in this particular case, you don't need a high frame rate camera to capture the different timing of the events i.e. (1) the explosion, and then a few frames later, (2) the bright streak of light, which should be what was remains of the round after hitting the truck and passing through it from the left direction of the picture (not from the right as most here seem to assume).

The time when you actually see the explosion and the streak of light in one, or any number of frames, of the footage, would be an indication the frame rate of the camera isn't high enough to capture the different timing of the 2 events.

i.e.: the footage we have seems to show the truck exploding spontaneously and then immediately after we see the line of flash and smoke of the projectile piercing into it, making it seem like the truck exploded before the projectile struck it.
but in reality, if we had a camera which was closer and operating at a much higher frame rate we would likely see the kinetic projectile fly into the truck, causing it to explode, and also see the path of the kinetic projectile behind the projectile itself being disrupted and interefered with its kinetic energy and air disturbance/friction, causing a streak of the "flash" and "smoke" behind it

You will see exactly the same different timings of the 2 events since the frame rate was already high enough to capture the different timings to begin with.

The only exception is you see more of the different stages of transitions for the 2 events. For example, you could see the different stages of the explosion and then follow by what was the remains of the round coming out of the right side of the explosion (or what was still remaining of the truck) and then seeing it slowly moving to the right side of the picture frame, i.e. not just seeing it as a streak of light when using just a normal camera.

 

[Blitzo]

The fact of the matter is, in this particular case, you don't need a high frame rate camera to capture the different timing of the events i.e. (1) the explosion, and then a few frames later, (2) the bright streak of light, which should be what was remains of the round after hitting the truck and passing through it from the left direction of the picture (not from the right as most here seem to assume).

The time when you actually see the explosion and the streak of light in one, or any number of frames, of the footage, would be an indication the frame rate of the camera isn't high enough to capture the different timing of the 2 events.




You will see exactly the same different timings of the 2 events since the frame rate was already high enough to capture the different timings to begin with.

The only exception is you see more of the different stages of transitions for the 2 events. For example, you could see the different stages of the explosion and then follow by what was the remains of the round coming out of the right side of the explosion (or what was still remaining of the truck) and then seeing it slowly moving to the right side of the picture frame, i.e. not just seeing it as a streak of light when using just a normal camera.

Okay, so you're saying you still believe the shot was coming from the left of the footage?

Honestly I don't think that's the case, but I don't care particularly enough about this matter to debate extensively about it, and without sufficiently more sensitive camera footage of the same event it's impossible to fully determine which direction it was anyhow unless there are people who are very much experienced with the behaviour of kinetic penetrators hitting vehicle targets.