[meteorite-list] Surface vs. buried finds: 2 separate issues

From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:29:54 2004
Message-ID: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86901B4ED53_at_US-Torrance.mail.saic.com>

Hi Zelimir and List,

> Rob,
> I was not aware the someone really did try to plow Sahara or Antarctica as
> farmers do with theirs fields. If someone did, was it by purpose to search
> meteorites underground? I would rather believe that, because of hostile
> cold and warm desert conditions, most of the search was just done on
> surface...

I think we're talking about two separate issues here. In your original
statement you first wrote:

"I believe Mark is perfectly right by saying that most meteorites
are lying below the soil surface."

This is ~probably~ true, though you might have a difficult time
proving it. ;-) Excluding the ocean, of course, most meteorites
do not penetrate the ground, since most meteorites are small, and
their terminal velocities are thus far from sufficient. *If*
most meteorites are indeed buried, it is due to earthly processes
in the centuries/millenia following a fall.

Now, you went on to say:

"I did not make any compiling but I guess if you go through all the
Met. Bull's reporting meteorite FINDS, I am pretty sure that about
(at least ?) half of them were found through plowing some field."

This is a second issue, that of recovery efficiency, and this was
the point I was addressing. Without even counting, I can safely
predict that less than 10% of all meteorite finds were buried
finds. It might even be less than 5%.

Cheers,
Rob
Received on Fri 12 Sep 2003 02:40:07 PM PDT