[meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...

From: Adam Hupe <adamhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:39 2004
Message-ID: <042b01c33367$4a6cd3c0$b4dbe60c_at_attbi.com>

Dear List,

We received numerous emails regarding the subject of the strewnfield and our
low altitude opinion. We were nowhere near the first to express our opinion
on this subject, we are just keeping an open mind. We are not researching
the strewnfield and are only commenting on plots we have seen, some of them
posted to the list. An impact velocity will be calculated in regards to the
Garza house because we preserved every item damaged by the meteorite.
Initial thoughts are that the meteorite that struck this home was traveling
four times faster than what would have been expected. We will let the
scientist complete there work on this before commenting more on the subject.

There are about three groups plotting individual finds. The plots I have
seen do not show what could be called a normal strewnfield. I think if the
three groups collaborated a more complete picture could be drawn as well as
better conclusions. As far as a rectangular strewnfield goes this also
makes sense because of the way the neighborhoods are subdivided. It seems
nobody is reporting finds on federal or state lands providing a skewed
interpretation adding to the strewnfield confusion. Why not have a
strewnfield that is square or rectangular and is reversed, everything else
in this urban setting seems to defy logic?

Now onto the subject of the glassy splashforms, that were called
micro-tektites for lack of a better description at first. An outrageous and
unexpected result showed up during the O-isotope testing. The only comment
I can make is that they did not plot with the L chondrites or on the
Earth/Moon line. A relationship to the fall, if any, can not be made at
this time. The lab results created more questions than answers but the
scientists promise to get to the bottom of this mystery.

All the best,

Adam



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom aka James Knudson" <knudson911_at_frontiernet.net>
To: <MeteorHntr_at_aol.com>
Cc: "meteorite-list" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...


> Hello Steve, Al and list. Steve wrote;
> ," 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"
>
> If this did happen could this explain the small Tektite-like objects the
> Hupe's found in the box?
> Thanks, Tom
> The proudest member of the IMCA 6168
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com
> To: almitt_at_kconline.com ; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 15 Jun 2003 01:55:21 PM PDT