[meteorite-list] Statistics for Falls

From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Jun 16 17:17:25 2004
Message-ID: <159.37c52726.2e0212db_at_aol.com>

Martin and List,

Martin wrote: "Hardly an ?average? year. Any thoughts?"

2 posisble options:

1. Maybe the heavens were helping Harvey get his business going during the
heart of the Great Depression. If there ever was a year that he needed the
help it probably would have been that year. Having gone full time in 1930,
probably all his "Paragould profits" were spent by 1933.

2. Maybe it was the fact that so many people were out of work then, still at
a time in history while many were on foot, people had more opportunity to
actually recover them. Some areas had literally NO vegitation growing (crops or
wild) so that stuff could be recovered more easily.

Personally, I vote for option #1.

Steve Arnold
Arkansas

========Original Message========
Subj: Re: [meteorite-list] Statistics for Falls
 Date: 6/16/2004 4:04:12 PM Central Standard Time
 From: martinh_at_isu.edu
 To: bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de
 CC: Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
 Sent from the Internet (Details)
    


Hi Bernd and All,

Out of curiosity, I looked up the falls of 1933 since it has the most
witnessed falls at 18 compared to the overall average number of
falls of 6.6 falls per year.

But now the surprise:

L6: 3
L5: 1
H4: 1
H3.5-4.5: 1
LL6: 2
Chondrite unknown: 1

Stone unknown: 1

CM2: 1

Howardite: 1
Eucrite: 3
Aubrite: 1

IIF iron: 1

Mesosiderite: 1

Hardly an ?average? year.

Any thoughts?

Martin




______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20040616/e4936ad2/attachment.htm
Received on Wed 16 Jun 2004 05:17:15 PM PDT