Thin plates in rotating Parry orientation as an explanation for the display 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.

Subhelic arc crossing at subsun (and some other stuff)

The four kaleidoscopic arcs carry in their name the location on the celestial sphere where their loops’ cross. For three of these halos – helic arc, Tricker anthelic arc and subanthelic arc – there exists photos showing the crossing.

But I knew of no such images of the remaining member of the quartet, the subhelic arc. So on the night of 5-6 November 2015 it was good to give it a try as diamond dust happened to form in an area where it was possible to place the lamp low.

It worked, although I must admit that there is really no actual cross to talk of as the subhelic arc sort of vanishes near the subsun. The display was better earlier, but then I was busy photographing at another spot nearby with less relief. By the time I moved the gear to the ski jump on the slope and took the photos for the stack above, the swarm had already lost its edge.

So there is room for improvement coming winter. Or maybe someone will photograph subhelic arc crossing from an airplane next time – just like the sub-120° parhelion and the missing segment of the subparhelic circle were photographed soon after their spotlight discoveries.

Subhorizon view for 33 degree light source elevation with regular hexagons in column orientation (h/d 1.5 dev 0.5). Simulation software: HaloPoint

At the ski jump I also switched the places of camera and lamp to see how the display looks on a positive elevation. Two photos are shown here, the upper one seems to be for a little less than 30 degree elevation and the lower one for a little less than 20 degrees.

Finally, the photo below shows the display when the diamond dust had just formed. Just like here, this is often the best stage, so it pays to come early and wait for things to start. Further below are the crystals for this stage. The marked cavities are worth noting. Maybe that is why I was not able to get a satisfying simulation. The sample also contained frozen droplets straight from the snow guns – the machines were just a couple of hundred meters away.

The temperature dropped from -2 to -6° C during the time I was out (from 10 pm to 7 am). I did not take note of the temperature when the action started, but it was lower than -2° C. If there is anything at all seen before it drops down to -5° C, things tend to be very unstable, switching quickly between ice and water fog.

Marko Riikonen

Solar diamond dust display with 87° arc

A stack of 40 photos. An average stack has been combined with maximum stack to show the crystal glitter of the 87° arc. The photos were taken during ~2 minutes. Sun movement has not been accounted for.

The diamond dust season is soon to arrive in Finland and it is time to wipe the dust off the equipment. In a meanwhile, here is the last winter’s starter for Rovaniemi, on October 30 2015. The temperature during the display was -5° C, a guaranteed number for great stuff.

So, what do we have here? First of all, visually the upper tangent arc was a breathtaking sight. In addition to its brightness, the myriads of moving crystals made it “swarm”, as if it were alive. The subhelic arc was also intense.

Then take a look at the zenith. There is an intensity threshold very familiar from spotlight displays, which we have been calling the 87° arc and which is made by 357 raypaths in rotating columnar crystals of triangular habit. Perhaps surprisingly, this is only the first time it has been observed with traditional light source. Most likely it would have been observable in some earlier photographed solar displays, but usually the photos don’t offer the luxury of all sky views.

We spotted 87° arc first visually, which we were quite happy about, as often faint effects only turn out from photos. Sun was behind the hill and not shining where we were standing, but some way up the crystals were lit. We saw crystal glitter on the sun half of the sky, cutting off abruptly at the zenith, leaving no glitter whatsoever on the opposite side.

Simulation and two versions of the stack which has 50 photos taken during 2 m 31 s.

Another feature of interest is the dark band between the Parry arc and the 46° halo. A simulation with HaloPoint having four populations of columnar crystals reproduced it quite well. Its formation is contributed by the 87° arc, 46° halo, Parry and 22° tangent arc. Crucial was making the area between Parry and tangent arc to have plenty of light by giving the four populations a continuum of limited rotations. Also, to enhance the upper edge of the gap it was necessary to keep 87° arc from extending inside 46° halo. The triangular column population with 10 degrees rotation did the work (the uppermost active population in the parameter table – number 3). Fully spinning crystals would have extended the 87° arc all the way to the sun.

Assuming the live crystal sample of this display is representative, we see that most crystals have end cavities and yet the subhelic arc (that uses both basal ends) is striking. According to the traditional picture, hollows are bad for halos, but this is not the first display to shake that belief, and actually simulations with column oriented crystals by Nicolas Lefaudeux in 2011 using idealized hexagonal cavities boosted the subhelic and particularly the Tricker arc. But then there are column displays where cavities seem to do their expected work and all rare halos are absent (we will post an example later). So it looks like it might not be a question of whether there are hollows, but rather of what kind of hollows there are.

Or maybe in nature the cavities are always bad, but in this case there were enough optically high quality crystals to make the strong subhelic arc. After all, not all crystals in the sample have cavities or the cavities are so small that their effect is negligible. It is also possible that there was more high quality crystals in the display than the sample lets us know – if they were small, we don’t see them much in the collecting dish because larger crystals have faster falling velocities and will dominate the sample.

Jarmo Moilanen, Marko Riikonen