Optical observations of meteors generating infrasound: Weak shock theory and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have recorded a data set of 24 cm sized meteoroids detected simultaneously by video and infrasound to critically examine the ReVelle (1974) weak shock meteor infrasound model. We find that the effect of gravity wave perturbations to the wind field and updated absorption coefficients in the linear regime on the initial value of the blast radius (R0), which is the strongly nonlinear zone of shock propagation near the body and corresponds to energy deposition per path length, is relatively small (<10%). Using optical photometry for ground truth for energy deposition, we find that the ReVelle model accurately predicts blast radii from infrasound periods (τ) but systematically underpredicts R0 using pressure amplitude. If the weak shock to linear propagation distortion distance is adjusted as part of the modeling process, we are able to self‐consistently fit a single blast radius value for amplitude and period. In this case, the distortion distance is always much less (usually just a few percent) than the value of 10% assumed in the ReVelle model. Our study shows that fragmentation is an important process even for centimeter‐sized meteoroids, implying that R0, while a good measure of energy deposition by the meteoroid, is not a reliable means of obtaining the meteoroid mass. We derived an empirical period‐blast radius relation of the form R0 = 15.4τ − 0.5 (τ ≤ 0.7 s) and R0 = 29.1τ − 11.6 (τ > 0.7 s) appropriate to centimeter‐sized meteoroids. Our observations suggest that meteors having blast radii as small as 1 m are detectable infrasonically at the ground, an order of magnitude smaller than previously considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".