Snow gun generated column display

On the night of 15th November 2016 (the night of the "supermoon") I was out of the city photographing the full Moon. The humidity was extremely high, which was evident by a huge aureola that was surrouding the Moon.

I was keeping an eye on webcams located at nearby ski centres, because the temperature was dropping below zero and snow coverage was scarce, therefore I was hoping for some snow gun action.

Few centres were operating the snow guns, but no diamond dust formation could be seen, so after a while I decided to return back to the city, but still keep an eye in case the conditions change. According to my previous post, Bílá ski centre is supposed to be the holy grail of diamond dust halos around here. But that is not true, there is another ski centre which generates diamond dust very frequently. I stayed up the whole night because I knew something would happen, and I was right, the ski centre I was talking about started generating halos, so I packed up my things and went again.

It is slightly further away than Bílá, so the trip took a while, but it was totally worth it:

This display, to my astonishment, was generated by a single snow gun (in the picture above it is located just behind the trees). No low hanging stratus, just high humidity and one snow gun. And it wasn't even on my previously planned location, it was actually a few kilometers ahead of it.

There are some indications of Parry oriented crystals, uppercave Parry is present and lowercave maybe too. indicated by a brightening on the circumscribed halo. Lowervex Parry was not seen. Wegener was maybe there, but the display itself was changing quite rapidly and I don't think my photos captured it.

Eventually I have decided to finish driving to my location. No halos there, and as I was returning, only faint and diffuse 22° halo was the only one left in the sky.

The crystal swarm was fairly thick, which can be seen in the main photo - the infralateral arcs were hanging in front of the forest. An amazing sight.

Fun addition: I had actually forgotten my gear at the location, and only realized it at home, so I had to return. It was still there!

Thin plates in rotating Parry orientation as an explanation for thedisplay on the night of 8/9 November 2016, in Rovaniemi

In an earlier post I told simulation attempts were not successful for this display. Well, I really did not put that much effort into it. Now I have given it a fresh look and managed to get some success.

The problem was the subhelic arc and anthelic arcs that could not be get rid of. In new simulations made with HaloPoint the subhelic arc issue is pretty much resolved and the anthelic arcs also play it low key.

As usual, the simulations do not stand scrutiny of details, but that does not matter regarding main message: that it was necessary to use thin plates in rotating Parry orientation to keep the subhelic arc and anthelic arc stuff in check.

Two simulations are shown above together with the photo. They are identical except that in the other the thin Parry crystals are rotating 15 degrees and in the other 5 degrees. The subhelic arc is actually in there, but it is masked by background noise from the random population. Well, maybe its curve can be detected in the 5 degree simulation, but it is shadowy. It becomes clearer with more burn and finer dot.

The simulation with 5 degree rotation replicates also the diffuse area of light seen above the Wegener arc in the image. It is a spread out helic arc. So maybe we could regard the Wegener rather as an intermediate form between Wegener and Hastings, the “Wegstings”.

If thin plates indeed are the culprit, how can they fall with their basal faces vertical? If we maintain that singular plates can not knife through the air in such orientation, then perhaps there were copious 90 degree crosssed plates in the air, built so that one was glued to the center of the other one’s basal face to provide the right balance for the required orientation. I did not take crystal samples, with one camera it is too much a hassle, particularly as we have again and again come to learn that samples rarely give answers.

Parameters for the other simulation in HaloPoint software. Shown is the thin plate in rotating Parry orientation.

 

 

 

 Finally, a technical factor could have influenced the subhelic arc visibility in the photo. I had placed the camera slightly outside the center of the beam sideways to enhance the sides of the display and this may have had a dampening effect on the visiblity of the higher located subhelic arc. The effect is probably not significant, the camera offset was just a little, but in the future this practise must be dropped in order to get best comparability with simulations (of course, as the spikes at the anthelic region attest, my beam is not regular anyway, so to some extent this issue is there aways). Off the record, I don’t really think that this could have made subhelic arc disappear, rather the opposite, because when the camera is right in the center of the beam, you have more masking bright glitter than when the camera is offset and any threshold intensity halos should be then lost easier. But it is good to let this issue have known.

A pure breed uppervex Hastings

In snow gun diamond dust displays Parry orientation is often strongly emphasized in relation to column orientation. There may be no signs of column orientation at all, except for perhaps a slight tanget arc brightening on top of 22° halo.

Such displays have made observers to ask themselves whether the uppervex Hastings arc – the Hastings arc component that is touching the uppervex Parry arc – could be sometimes be obseved in addition to the usual Wegener, or even without it. So far displays where light source elevation allows separation of uppervex Hastings and Wegener have not resulted in any candidates.

However, in spotlight displays where lamp is at or below the horizon, we have managed to photograph during the last and this winter a several of cases that are suggestive of an uppervex Hastings. And not even suggestive, but outright assertive.

The uppervex Hastings intensifies with lowering light source elevation, only complication is that it then starts to overlap with Wegener and identification must be done on the basis of other halos in the display. If Parry orientation halos are prominent and column orientation halos such as 46° lateral arcs, diffuse arcs and subhelic and Tricker arc are very weak or absent, then we might say that the “Hastgener” in the display is indeed Hastings arc.

As an example of a display that leaves little doubt of its Hastings nature, here is shown a one that Marko Mikkilä observed this year, on the 2nd January in Sievi. The lamp was resting on the ground on a rather level field and is according to Mikkilä about 3 degrees below the camera.

We see no evidence of column orientation – no 46° lateral arcs, no Tricker, no subhelic arc. Instead, in the image there is an overwhelming helic arc and Tape arcs, which both are solely Parry orientation born. Thus the faint “Hastgener” must be an uppervex Hastings arc, rather than Wegener.

Above is a attempt at simulating with HaloPoint. It supports the Parry scenario untarnished by columns, even though the details may not be quite right. Perhaps the most striking mismatch is with the subanthelic arc, which is bright in simulation but seems to be missing from the photo. However, there is a darker area which looks as if shaped by subanthelic arc. This seems to be a real effect, we have seen similar looking dark voids inside anthelic arcs before and in an upcoming post I will be showing a good example of such darkness associated with this halo. Perhaps the more intense parts of subanthelic arc are outside left outside of Mikkilä’s photo, although in that case it should have been possible to make a matching simulation. I actually did find an option which was better in that respect, but other parts got too wrong to take it seriously.

An earlier display in the same location by Mikkilä seems to also contain a pure uppervex Hastings.

All rare halos are missing in this spotlight display, but why?

By Marko Mikkilä, Jarmo Moilanen and Marko Riikonen

The mystery deepens. In two previous posts we wondered why some displays are great in their column orientation halos even though the crystals have well caved ends. Here we show a case that appeared on November 22, 2015 in Rovaniemi, where crystals seem not much different, yet rare halos requiring basal faces are completely absent. Even the 46° supralateral arc gives just a whiff. Poor crystal orientations can’t explain the absence of rare halos as the tangent arc is quite sharp. Had we known only about this display, we would be quite happy to explain with cavities, but knowing about the other displays, it is quite puzzling.

Wegener or Hastings?

This spotlight display that was photographed in Rovaniemi on the night of 5/6 January rises the question of whether it is Wegener or Hastings arc or both together that is seen here. From the outset, as there is helic arc but no subhelic arc one could argue that it is rather the uppervex Hastings arc.

When comparing with simulations (below) it does not look that obvious anymore. The curvature and extent of the arc looks more akin to Wegener than Hastings (the side view image). And it is possible to simulate Wegener without subhelic arc by using thin plates in column orientation. Indeed, to have best agreement with the images, in all simulations thin plates were used both in Parry and column orientation.

In the image on the left the crystal h/d is 0.1 for all simulations. In the one on the right it is h/d 0.03 for rotations of 0.5 and 5 degrees, for full rotation simulation h/d 0.1 was used. Crystals are triangular, oriented in Parry orientation so that the tip is pointing up.

Well, none of these simulations come out satisfying. The light source elevation for simulations is -5 degrees.

Marko Riikonen / Nicolas Lefaudeux

– added one more image with simulation containing both Wegener and Hastings