[meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...
From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:39 2004 Message-ID: <c.13220227.2c1df463_at_aol.com> --part1_c.13220227.2c1df463_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello almitt_at_kconline.com wrote: A number of the Park Forest Meteorites seem to be quite rough in outside texture while still having fusion crust. This to me indicates a low altitude breakup of the fireball. I don't know however if it could have broken up as low as 7,000 feet which also seems too low to me also. *********** AL and list, I have seen many pieces both small, medium and large that have had little fusion crust, but still have had some fusion crust on all sides. In fact, I have had some specimens that looked like they were mostly or all dark, but still have some crust, but when I would closely examine them, it often times seemed that there was a small patch of light material that would be up on the surface area and it was the light material that was cursted over. The dark material (impact melted portions?) seem to either have not created much, if any crust in the first place or the crust that was formed flaked off very easily in flight. Could it be that if the melted portions (from the in space impact) just are not as good at forming or holding crust when they enter our atmosphere? Even many of the almost crustless specimens are very well rounded. Out of the 175 or specimens I have seen with my own eyes, a few have been obvious fragments, with well crusted portions and very sharp breaks in other parts of their surface, ones that clearly broke after the burn out. However, with a large majority of the crustless or near crustless specimens, that are so rounded, some even nose cone shaped, I have to conclude that they burned for some time and either did not create much of a crust or the crust was lost in flight. If crust was lost in flight, I am surprised that none (or little) has been found apart from the masses. Or maybe we just ahven been looking for papaer thin crust fragments. Or that the paper thin crust fragments were subject to winds that carried them out of the stewnfield area where we have been looking. Also, I have to disagree with Adam Hupe when he said in a previous post that the strewnfield is mostly round. It is not. It is quite long, and even less oval and more like a long rectangle, with a very predictable sizes found from under a gram up to the 2.7kg pieces we know about. In fact, if more pieces are found in the 10KG to 50kg to 100kg or bigger in size, I think we will find that the distribution pattern is even more normal. There is just one anomaly that we have found in the distribution process, and I will leave that for a research paper we will be writing one the strewnfield in the future. Steve Arnold --part1_c.13220227.2c1df463_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE= =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Hello almitt_at_kconline.com wrote:<BR> <BR> A number of the Park Forest Meteorites seem to be quite rough in outside tex= ture while<BR> still having fusion crust. This to me indicates a low altitude breakup of th= e<BR> fireball. I don't know however if it could have broken up as low as 7,000 fe= et which<BR> also seems too low to me also.<BR> <BR> ***********<BR> <BR> AL and list,<BR> <BR> I have seen many pieces both small, medium and large that have had little fu= sion crust, but still have had some fusion crust on all sides. In fact= , I have had some specimens that looked like they were mostly or all dark, b= ut still have some crust, but when I would closely examine them, it often ti= mes seemed that there was a small patch of light material that would be up o= n the surface area and it was the light material that was cursted over. = ; The dark material (impact melted portions?) seem to either have not create= d much, if any crust in the first place or the crust that was formed flaked=20= off very easily in flight. <BR> <BR> Could it be that if the melted portions (from the in space impact) just are=20= not as good at forming or holding crust when they enter our atmosphere? = ; <BR> <BR> Even many of the almost crustless specimens are very well rounded. Out of th= e 175 or specimens I have seen with my own eyes, a few have been obvious fra= gments, with well crusted portions and very sharp breaks in other parts of t= heir surface, ones that clearly broke after the burn out. However, wit= h a large majority of the crustless or near crustless specimens, that are so= rounded, some even nose cone shaped, I have to conclude that they burned fo= r some time and either did not create much of a crust or the crust was lost=20= in flight.<BR> <BR> If crust was lost in flight, I am surprised that none (or little) has been f= ound apart from the masses. Or maybe we just ahven been looking=20= for papaer thin crust fragments. Or that the paper thin crust fragment= s were subject to winds that carried them out of the stewnfield area where w= e have been looking.<BR> <BR> Also, I have to disagree with Adam Hupe when he said in a previous post that= the strewnfield is mostly round. It is not. It is quite long, a= nd even less oval and more like a long rectangle, with a very predictable si= zes found from under a gram up to the 2.7kg pieces we know about. In f= act, if more pieces are found in the 10KG to 50kg to 100kg or bigger in size= , I think we will find that the distribution pattern is even more normal.&nb= sp; There is just one anomaly that we have found in the distribution process= , and I will leave that for a research paper we will be writing one the stre= wnfield in the future.<BR> <BR> Steve Arnold</FONT></HTML> --part1_c.13220227.2c1df463_boundary-- Received on Sun 15 Jun 2003 12:10:11 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|