[meteorite-list] paper About Tunguska Event Impactor

From: Jeff Kuyken <jeff_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jun 24 03:45:30 2004
Message-ID: <003401c459bd$ab7c7d50$fe348690_at_mandin4f89ypwu>

G'day Paul & List,

>They estimated that the mass of either the comet or carbonaceous asteroid was as large as 103-106 tons.

I find this intriguing as I would have thought that this mass would be no where near large enough to do the damage which was observed at Tunguska. Does a comet/carb asteroid have more energy than an iron asteroid and would it also depend on where or if the mass detonated? I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.

Cheers,

Jeff Kuyken
I.M.C.A. #3085
www.meteorites.com.au



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul H
  To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:34 AM
  Subject: [meteorite-list] paper About Tunguska Event Impactor


  In the March (2004) issue of Planetary and Space
  Science, there is a paper discussing the identity
  of the impactor, which produced the Tunguska Event,
  that might be of interest to some list members.
  The paper is:

  Q. L. Hou , E. M. Kolesnikov , L. W. Xie , N. V.
  Kolesnikova , M. F. Zhou and M. Sun, 2004,
  Platinum group element abundances in a peat layer
  associated with the Tunguska event, further
  evidence for a cosmic origin. Planetary and
  Space Science. vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 331-340
  doi:10.1016/j.pss.2003.08.002

  Based upon "excess" Pd, Rh, Ru, REE, Co, Sr, and Y
  found in a peat column from the Northern peat bog
  of the 1908 Tunguska explosion site, they concluded
  that the impactor, which created the Tunguska event
  was "more likely a comet", although the possibility
  that the impactor might have alternatively been a
  carbonaceous asteroid. They estimated that the
  mass of either the comet or carbonaceous asteroid
  was as large as 103-106 tons.

  I am only reporting what this paper stated. I don't
  know enough about the pro and cons of the various
  arguments about the Tunguska event to evaluate
  their conclusions in any intelligent manner. If
  anybody needs more information, he or she can
  find contact information for the authors by
  clicking the link, "Volume 52, Issue 4, pp. 259-340
  (March 2004)" at:

  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00320633

  and following the article link to the abstract.

  (Besides my library doesn't subscribe to Planetary
  and Space Science. Thus, I only have access to the
  article's abstract.)

  Yours,

  Paul




  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
  http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
  ______________________________________________
  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/20040624/6d9eec65/attachment.htm
Received on Thu 24 Jun 2004 03:34:21 AM PDT