[meteorite-list] Cold hunting

From: dfpens_at_comcast.net <dfpens_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:29:53 2004
Message-ID: <20030911010609.D283053581_at_pairlist.net>

The comment was made that:

"If you want to reduce search time per (cold) meteorite find (i.e.
non-strewnfield), the #1 factor is "survival time" -- you must
maximize it any way you can:
1. Low deposition rate -- ideally a ~negative~ deposition rate: you'd
> prefer a surface that is "deflating"
>
> 2. Low annual precipitation
>
> 3. Minimal human presence"

There is yet another way. Search a known strewn field - not one that has been
picked over but one that has not.

For instance, there have been 8 falls/finds in Pennsylvania - 3 near my home
town of Pittsburgh. Not many pieces have been recovered. Barring weathering,
there is a good chance that these "strewn fields" may yet be fertile,
particularly for stony meteorites.

The incoming Chicora meteoroid was observed by many in 1938 and calculations
indicate that the total incoming mass was around 519 tons before it exploded
about 12 miles up. Only four pieces were ever recovered. I just bet there are
pieces yet to be found. When I retire, I hope to search this area - it's my
square mile!!

Dave P.
> Hi Norm and List,
>
> > As an exploration geologist, I spend at least 15-20 long days every
> > month wandering the alluvial fans and dry lakes of Nevada searching
> > for mineralized float (and, unofficially, meteorites!). Some of
> > the remote dry lakes are almost certainly unsearched, and can cover
> > many square miles.
>
> You might be surprised. Aside from playas on military installations (which
> in Nevada is a pretty big fraction!) I'm fairly confident that most
> of the major dry lakes in Nevada (and California) have been searched at
> least once by one or more competent meteorite hunters. Of course, they
> haven't been searched "completely"; indeed, no location can ever be
> completely searched due to the dynamic nature of playas.
>
> > Putting along on my ATV, I can give a reasonably large area a pretty
> > decent search. After several years of this, still NO cold finds.
>
> This is actually a bit surprising, though I can think of a couple
> factors which could bring it about:
>
> 1. your size threshold (how small a stone you will stop for)
> 2. too broad a search image
>
> By broad search image I mean that your primary target (mineralized
> float) is so dissimilar to your secondary target (meteorites) that
> the subconscious pattern-matching that your brain is trying to
> accomplish will suffer. (It's hard enough picking out meteorites
> among terrestrial brown and black rocks).
>
> > I think the point may be that there's a pretty good chance that
> > stones have at some point fallen on most any square mile of earth's
> > surface.
>
> Absolutely. Even if each fall produced only a single meteorite, in
> any square mile you could expect a fall about once every 5000
> years. However, the average number of meteorites per fall is
> certainly more than one (perhaps in the neighborhood of a half
> dozen?), so this improves things. Maybe a meteorite every 2500
> years per square mile (a complex problem that requires some
> Monte Carlo modeling to come up with a good figure). This leads
> to Norm's next point:
>
> > However, in most areas, survival times are short. In many areas,
> > erosion has erased the record. In other areas, deposition has
> > buried every trace.
>
> Exactly. I liked this wording:
>
> > From the cosmic perspective, every square mile is created equal, but
> > for us grunts on the ground, that's far from the case. Some square
> > miles are just right. Most are not.
>
> If you want to reduce search time per (cold) meteorite find (i.e.
> non-strewnfield), the #1 factor is "survival time" -- you must
> maximize it any way you can:
>
> 1. Low deposition rate -- ideally a ~negative~ deposition rate: you'd
> prefer a surface that is "deflating"
>
> 2. Low annual precipitation
>
> 3. Minimal human presence
>
> Fortunately point #3 tends to go naturally with #2. It's only in the
> modern era of weekend warriors (and meteorite hunters!) that #3 has
> become an issue. Still, the historical importance of point #3 can
> not be ignored for iron meteorites. Chondrites wouldn't have been

> particularly useful to native Americans 500 years ago; irons certainly
> were.
>
> But detection isn't just about "signal" (signal in this case being
> the presence of meteorites); it's about signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
> and scan rate. What else is sharing space with your meteorites,
> and how does this impact the rate you can search an area? It's
> not much fun looking for meteorites in a sea of basalt.
>
> Scan rate, incidentally, is the reason one should never hunt cold for
> meteorites with a metal detector. It is more than 50 times less
> efficient that visual searching. But you also don't want your scan
> rate to be too high or you'll miss the small stuff. Remember that
> there are far greater numbers of small meteorites than large ones.
> Searching in a car or truck is fine for finding the big ones, but
> most places that ~can~ be searched by car/truck in Nevada and
> California already have been. You'll have better luck looking for
> small meteorites, and this means getting out of your car and its

> limited viewing angles. Most of my searching is done on foot.
>
> An ATV is even better than walking: you're still close to the ground
> with an unobstructed view, but you have the comfort and convenience
> of motorized transport. ATVs can also get into distant areas that
> cars can't (and by extension, walking searchers).
>
> So to summarize: search old, simple surfaces on foot or by ATV,
> and you will eventually find meteorites.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Wed 10 Sep 2003 09:06:05 PM PDT