[meteorite-list] Shirokovsky

From: Laurie Kallis <lauriekallis_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:37 2004
Message-ID: <BAY2-F1218Oh1pMuBeZ00019bcf_at_hotmail.com>

First, let me apologize for the length of this posting.

We have been involved with the distribution of Shirokovsky Meteorite since
family made the recovery last year. Shirokovskymeteorite.com is our website.
Since questions of the meteorite's authenticity were raised we have
refrained from making sales and have added a clause to that effect to our
webiste.
One of the members of the Russian group who made the recovery has written in
response to the the questions of authenticity and the accusations. We have
translated his response and pasted it into the body of this email. This
same article will soon be added to the website.

Specimens, properly prepared specimens, are currently being retested in St.
Petersburg.

Until then........


So,what on Earth is it?
Search Expeditions for the Ugleuralsky (Shirokovsky) Meteorite: 2000-2003
What distinguished the search expeditions then known as the “Ugleuralsky”
meteorite expeditions from other contemporary meteoritic expeditions was
their official tone: the preparation under the auspices of the Russian
Geographical Society and the involvement of mass media. Thirty people, not
counting the local volunteers and Shirokovsky Power Station staff,
participated in the four search expeditions that took place between 2000 and
2003.
First hand witnesses of the meteorite fall who still live in the Shirokovsky
village, those who came to the hole in the ice after experiencing the flash
of light and the sound effect in 1956, were thoroughly questioned. Their
recollections of the location of the point of impact coincided with the
topographic tyings to the terrain reported by the USSR Sverdlovsk Academy of
Science expedition carried out in 1956, immediately after the fall.
A detailed relief map of the reservoir bottom supplied by the board of the
Shirokovsky Power Station, in concordance with the opinions of specialists
in ballistics, determined the extent of the search area.
The search proved more difficult than expected because constant removal of
sunken timber logs from the reservoir bottom over the years had dispersed
the meteorite fragments over a much larger area than was originally
anticipated. Eventually, with the help of a metal detector, our group
recovered approximately 150 kg of samples.


Encountering Difficulties

The friendliness shown by the local population was inversely proportional to
the growing awareness of the potential value of the possible find. A
representative of the local ‘Family’, paid us a visit by jeep, showing a
great but vaguely formulated interest in our diving activities.
After our diving group departed in late spring, scientists from the city of
Sverdlovsk, led by professor Grokhovsky, arrived with their own group of
divers who risked their lives on weakened ice that had developed cracks and
was no longer safe to walk on in the hope of locating any meteoritic
substance missed by our group.
We appealed to the Committee for Meteorites at the Vernadsky Institute to
have samples of the Shirokovsky specimens tested. Our appeal was rejected on
the grounds that they had no information about the Ugleuralsky meteorite
fall, despite a number of scientific and media reports dating back to 1956.
Sampling services and subsequent registration were offered by enthusiast A.
Milanovsky (http://meteorites.narod.ru), but our group was not looking for
easy ways. We planned to have the Shirokovsky samples tested and registered
as a meteorite in another country. We sent a representative to the Girorne
Meteoritic Fair in Germany where he met people from the same CMET who
originally rejected our appeal to have the samples tested. This time, they
convinced our representative that it would be patriotic to carry out the
research and register the meteorite in Russia.


Defining a Meteorite

Further developments in our quest to have Shirokovsky registered as a
meteorite can serve as a precedent for future discussions on the topic ‘what
should be considered a meteorite?’.
Historically, the system of identification and registration of meteorites
first presumes that a sample is either of terrestrial origin or artificial.
To prevent the Committee on Meteorites from being transformed into the
mining branch, they quickly sift out the ‘rubbish’, by searching for
specific features defined by a system of identification that follows
existing theories of the formation of the universe. Logically, the samples
treated most skeptically are those submitted without genealogy, those that
have no testimonial evidence of their fall or the point of impact.
In the case of Shirokovsky, not only is the area of the fall identified, but
the actual point of impact was accurately located in the frozen reservoir.
During the course of our four search expeditions, an area at the bottom of
the reservoir with a radius of 100m centered beneath the identified point of
impact was literally scrutinized with magnifying glasses and pincers. We
found no other stones capable of leaving the iron-nickel traces that were
found on the walls of the ice hole where the meteorite entered the reservoir
in 1956. Nor was anything found by our rivals, the alternative divers’
expedition from the city of Sverdlovsk. It is almost certain that what our
divers lifted from the reservoir bottom is what fell from the sky, broke
through the ice and left the iron nickel traces in 1956, simply because
their was nothing else found on the reservoir bottom that could have left
such traces.


Testing of Shirokovsky

Recent testing of Shirokovsky has indicated that Shirokovsky is on the
terrestrial oxygen isotope fractionation line. Experts of the Kurchatov
Institute have questioned the purity of this testing because the sample
specimen was not properly prepared by means of laser ablation for the mass
spectrometry. Before it was tested, the sample underwent thermal, chemical
and other influences that may have led to substitution of oxygen in the
olivine. At this stage, the Saint Petersburgian Scientific Research
Institute will provide some aid with VSEGEI (noble gases, lead) and GIPCH
(oxygen) testing under the direction of the Russian Academy of Science
Precambrian Institute Research Laboratory of U. A. (Shukulukov and L. K.
Levsky), where the samples are currently being prepared. We expect that the
tests results will show either the shifting of isotopic ratio relative to
the line of terrestrial rocks or they will ascribe the sample to the
anomalous group - lunar, Martian, aubrita, etc - that contradicts the
homogeneous picture of the origin of the terrestrial rocks.
Radiogenic argon was found in the Shirokovsky specimens, although in smaller
quantities than expected. We hope that the figures will be more in line
after a properly prepared sample is tested at the above-mentioned
institutions.


Making a Meteorite

When the test results, results from testing conducted on an improperly
prepared Shirokovsky specimen, favored a terrestrial origin, some speculated
that the specimen was an artificially produced ‘false meteorite’ - similar
to a product produced through blast furnace casting in the former USSR.
In response to this speculation, we turned to the staff of different
scientific and metallurgical institutions, questioning the possibility of
using existing technologies to create an object with a composition similar
to that of Shirokovsky. The metallurgists gave quite an irrefutable answer.
Only three ways of forming metal are known:
1. forging
2. casting
3. sintering (powder metallurgy)

Forging:
Forging, where metal is heated to a high temperature, then hammered into
shape, is obviously out of the question.

Casting
Casting an object with a composition similar to that of Shirokovsky is
possible only under zero gravity conditions, since Archimedean force would
instantly eject the lighter minerals to the surface.

Sintering (Powder Metallurgy)
Sintering would allow minerals to disperse inside the mould. But no mould
could cast a stone with surface protrusions that jut out at opposing angles.
The extraction of the object from the mould would inevitably lead to its
destruction. Moreover, the outside cavities of the mould would tend to fill
with the smaller particles of powder instead of the larger mineral crystals.
Shirokovsky has surface protrusions that jut out at opposing angles. These
protrusions are filled with larger pieces of olivine and metallic matrix.


What is Shirokovsky?

Thus, in summary, Shirokovsky can be described as:
“something found at the point of impact of a celestial body and something
impossible to produce with methods currently known to science”.


A. Alexeyevich
Full Member of the Russian Geographical Society.
Participant of the search expedition for the Ugleuralsky (Shirokovsky)
meteorite.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Received on Thu 12 Jun 2003 11:38:49 AM PDT