[meteorite-list] Meteorite in New Hampshire

From: Gary K. Foote <gary_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:07:40 -0500
Message-ID: <45DE304C.29752.3A41B8F_at_gary.webbers.com>

Sterling,

Hot Cocoa is on me. lol I understand now that winters are different everywhere and our
double-digit minus 0 farenheit winters may well cause different conditions than where you
are. There is no melt-freeze-melt cycle here except ant the beginning and end of
winters. The rest is all cold, cold, cold. Odd is the day that is above freezing, as
was the day of our initial hunt.

I plan to speak with some weather observers about the dual levels of ice we encountered
and whether or not they are normal. Again, my personal knowledge fails me.

As to comic dust being 'identical in nature' to incoming meteorites, that is a bridge we
will have to cross when results are in. Perhaps we will see some atmospheric entry
features that preclude their being average cosmic dust. Only the future will tell.

I only know that CJ and I had an exciting and wonderful day and hope to repeat it as
often as possible. Someday we will, I am sure, strike the iron while it is hot and find
a meteorite soon after its fall. We pray that it will be here in NH as it would be
historic in nature. But we do plan some trips to desert climes for some more traditional
meteorite hunting. Picking one up off the ground will certainly get our collective
bloods flowing!

Very Best,

Gary

On 22 Feb 2007 at 22:37, Sterling K. Webb wrote:

> Hi, Gary, List,
>
> Like a clod, I meant to say what a good
> page and description of the "chase" it was
> and forgot to. By the time I finished reading
> it, my feet were cold and I felt a sudden desire
> for hot cocoa.
> Your weather is colder than my weather.
> And my observations are probably more true
> of a winter that bounces back and forth over
> the freezing line. We haven't been "subzero"
> (F) for years.
> Maybe the dual ice layer is the result of two
> freezes, an earlier one that never melted fully
> and a later one that couldn't close the gap.
> The Earth gets about 400,000 tons of Interplanetary
> Dust Particles per year: "The earth's surface is
> constantly being rained upon by interplanetary
> dust particles (IDP's), from a few to several
> hundred micrometers in diameter. The mass
> distribution of this dust flux peaks at around
> 200?m (Love and Brownlee, 1993). This dust
> is thought to be derived from collisions of
> asteroidal material and from comets (e.g.
> Kortenkamp and Dermott, 1998). The majority
> of IDPs are compositionally similar to
> chondritic meteorites (Jessberger et al, 2001),
> and quite distinct from crustal rocks on earth."
> The exact amount of nickel in cosmic dust
> bunnies is the basis of an argument. Earlier high
> estimates of how much dust was incoming were
> because the nickel content was thought to be
> higher than it turned out to be.
> But, regardless of the amount, you'll find nickel
> in cosmic dust. Just think of it as ground up meteorites,
> all kinds together.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary K. Foote" <gary at webbers.com>
> To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>;
> <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite in New Hampshire
>
>
> Hi sterling,
>
> First, I realize the odds are against this being a meteoric created hole.
> That being
> said let me shed some light on some of your questions;
>
> On 22 Feb 2007 at 20:48, Sterling K. Webb wrote:
>
> > The ice is obviously quite thick now.
> > How thick was it when the hole appeared?
>
> It was totally frozen over the and 2 feet+ of snow fell the night that the
> hole appeared.
> I assume the ice was at least 6 to eight inches thich though we did
> b=neglect to measure
> the depth of ice in the non-modified ice. :( Live and learn.
>
>
> > the hole is in the "center" (more or less) is always a
> > suspicious piece of data. Lakes and ponds freeze from
> > the shallow shore to the deep center, in that order. The
> > center (or the deepest spot) is always the last place to
> > freeze and the ice is always thinnest there.
>
> The pond is only 7 feet deep at the point of the hole and with our regular
> below zero
> weather the center would have been just as frozen as the edges. In fact,
> around here it
> is at the shores where the ice is thinnest as the warmth of the underlying
> land warms the
> ice and keeps it from freezing as fast as at the deeper points. Its always
> near the edge
> where people go in thru the ice early in winter - either there or where
> there is a
> current that keeps the water from sitting still enough long enough to freeze
> as rapidly
> the more steady water does.
>
> > Particularly when the temperature drop is recent and
> > not long-term, you will find lakes and ponds with thick
> > stampable ice over the shallow margins (and farm ponds
> > tend to have broad shallows) while in the center sits a
> > universal invitation to a sudden thermal excursion.
>
> If there is a tendency to thermal excursion to the center of a shallow pond
> I'm not aware
> of it. Doesn't mean its not true - just that I've not heard of this
> phenomenon. I'd be
> interested in anyone's pointers to greater knowledge in this area. Further,
> this is not
> only a stream fed pond, but a spring fed pond. the landowner assurred us
> the spring was
> a good 50 feet from the hole.
>
> > The owner's assertion of "no tracks" has to be weighed
> > against the time that may have elapsed, the wind drift factor,
> > the chance of snow since the incident, and the likelihood
> > of quick wet prancing (and very annoyed) feet leaving prints.
>
> The snow, as stated before, fell on the night of the phenomenon's
> appearance. Maybe
> this is a factor in its appearance. I just don't know. I do know it is a
> fairly remote
> area and the landowner has a dog who is kept inside and she and her dog were
> the first
> ones on the scene in the morning. The landowner noted no tracks the very
> next morning.
> It was also clearly noted that there were no footprints anywhere on the pond
> the day we
> arrived seven days later. Footprints persist in snow until the next
> snowfall and there
> has been no significant snow since, so I feel there had been nobody near the
> area at all.
>
> > No hunt for a space rock is ever wasted, though. Alan
> > Hildebrand, of the MIAC - Prairie Meteorite Search project
> > in Canada, with very reasonable assumptions, estimates that
> > ~1.4 meteorites >100 g mass occur in each km2 (or about
> > 4.5 meteorites >10 g mass). That's about one 100+ gm
> > meteorite for every 175 acres, or one 10 gm every 56 acres.
> > Read: http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/pmsearch.htm
>
> This is one of the facts that gives me hope. I must admit to some
> disappointment, but
> like you said, the hunt itself is a worthy learning exercise.
>
> > I'm sure that your "particles" contain meteoritic material;
> > every open body of water in the world collects cosmic dust!
> > In fact, Jerry Flaherty posted a story about kids collecting
> > meteor "dust" on the night of major meteor showers using
> > a big flat pan of water. You can also find cosmic "stuff"
> > in the muck that lines the bottom of your gutters. Scrape
> > out your gutters, put the gunk in a plastic bucket, dilute
> > with water, drag a supermagnet through it, and Voila! Star
> > Dust.
>
> I remember this post by Jerry. To avoid being foolde by cos=mic dust we
> will be looking
> for not only visual analysis, but nickel content analysis. Does cosmic dust
> contain
> nickel in the 'right quantities? Again I don't know.
>
> > There's a long list of natural occurances that can punch
> > holes in new-iced ponds. But one of them is... Meteorite!
> > My problem is that I can't find any rendition of a meteorite
> > having been found that way.
>
> I know. wouldn't it be lovely if CJ and I were the first to claim this
> particular find
> method? The splash patterns of water around the hold are compelling
> though...
>
> Thanks for your comments and information Sterling. We will continue the
> pursuit, though
> the odds seem to be against us at this point. :)
>
> Gary
>
>
>
Received on Fri 23 Feb 2007 12:07:40 AM PST