[meteorite-list] Last on Adamana for a while (I hope)

From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:23:17 -0700
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20070301231911.01ca5768_at_pop.west.cox.net>

Dave,
It was good to talk to you on the phone the other day. Thanks for the
update and your always appreciated opinion. I hope to get up there and do
a little scouting around with you before Summer. And, as far as I'm
concerned, you and Schoner are the experts when it comes to Holbrook.

Best,
JKG

At 10:09 PM 3/1/2007, DNAndrews wrote:
>Hi again, Jason,
>
>I've been researching the Holbrook field and it's history for about 9
>years now. Talking to old timers and listening to their stories passed
>down from their ancestors, etc. I've found 100's of the stones and the
>people I've hunted with, at least a hundred more. I think I/we have a
>pretty good idea now as to the orientation of the elipse and the size of
>the known field. From all of this, I can pretty much now tell what
>direction the bolide came from and which way it was headed. I can tell
>you now, from personal experience, it's now 3-1/2 x 1-1/2 miles. You
>can quote Norton, Kring, Farrington, Google all you want, but that's the
>size....now. It's not growing from erosion. Now that's "ridiculous"
>(as you keep saying). Those stones didn't blow in the wind on top and
>sides of those dunes, nor did they go down some torential wash and end
>up there either. I'm sure the modern day King of Holbrook, Steve
>Schoner, will agree with me on this as will a few others. In fact, it
>was years I ago I got the approx. dimensions from him off this very list.
>
>The only reason I mentioned large chondrules in some of the original
>finds, is to point out the Holbrook meteorite was not homogenous in
>structure. There is even a picture I have of an original Foote stone
>that has an 11mm hole where a chondrule fell out of it's crust.
>However, of all my finds, I only see a size of 1mm or maybe a very few
>2mm (as the largest) chondrules in the matrix. I found one stone of
>~140 gms in weight, that was in fragments. It's non-crusted, exposed
>surfaces were brown....much like the sides of the Adamana stone. I have
>a cast of the Adamana, and it's of such quality that I can see some of
>the chondrules. They look just like the size of the typical chondrules
>in the Holbrook finds to me.
>
>I appreciate all your textbook explanations as to why I'm a kook, but I
>really don't think the Holbrook was a "textbook" fall. Yes, I thought
>of sonic booms as the rapid succession explosions. As far as all the
>pressure and stress on the front of the bolide, what effect does that
>have on the trailing portion of the body? It appears that the Adamana
>nose cone made it through it's flight in the atmosphere to it's strewn
>field. Did I say strewn field? Sorry, my mistake. And the back side
>of the stone? Looks quite cracked and friable to me. The only thing
>about it that bothers me is the top-side crust.
>
>Now, I'm not going to tell everything I know to you or hundreds of other
>people. That would be cutting my own throat like I've probably already
>said too much already. However, I will share that I talked to the
>original finders of the Adamana stone last night on the phone. It was
>found in their horse corral and then they used it as a door stop on
>their barn. They know nothing of any Railroad bed filler in the
>corral. So, out goes the fence post story....the cowboy with the .22 (
>who will remain nameless as well).....the Goodwater story, etc. The
>good news is I have my permission to hunt on their property. I expect
>to come up empty-handed, but who knows? Might get lucky like Larry
>did. ;-)
>
>Anyway Jason, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled my
>kooky, half-baked theory. As you said, you weren't here at the time of
>the fall, neither was I. But, I'm here now...that's the difference.
>
>Cheers,
>Dave (who is running late to work)
>
>Jason Utas wrote:
>
> > Hello Dave, All,
> >
> > >If indeed the Adamana meteorite is the front piece of the Holbrook, and
> > I'm NOT saying it is
> >
> > The idea of a 'front piece' of the Holbrook mass is something that I
> > find completely ridiculous. Stress mechanics alone state that
> > anything at the front of the object would be subjected to much greater
> > stress than the remainder of the stone and would therefore be the
> > first part of the stone to fragment. There's simply no reason
> > whatsoever for the trailing remainder of the meteorite to so violently
> > explode, seeing as it must have been subjected to much lesser forces.
> > If, however, it were simply a small portion of a larger 'main mass' of
> > Holbrook that one hypothesizes must have traveled an additional number
> > of miles past the known termination of the strewnfield, you might have
> > the basis for some sort of multiple-fragmentation, the likes of which
> > has *never* been seen before, with at least two distribution ellipses
> > separated my miles of 'barren' land. I, however, find this about
> > equally unlikely as the previously mentioned possibility, if not more
> > so.
> >
> > >then it would have the thickest primary crust out
> > of any other portion of the fall.
> >
> > Why? There's no reason for such a 'front piece,' even supposing it
> > could exist, to not fragment later into multiple pieces just as the
> > remainder of the fall had. In all probability, if such a 'front
> > piece' existed, this would most likely be a portion that broke off
> > of it, and as such, its crust would most likely be the same as the
> > rest of the fall.
> >
> > That said, you do seem to acknowledge the fact that it's crust does,
> > in general, appear to be much more thick/different in appearance than
> > that of Holbrook, to say nothing of the interior...
> >
> > >There are pictures of original finds
> > that have chondrules as much as 5-7 mm in diameter.
> >
> > I know. Holbrook has much larger chondrules than that of Adamana, at
> > least as well as can be seen on the broken surfaces.
> >
> > >Also, one has to
> > keep in mind that it was found in a horse corral. I'm sure acidic horse
> > urine and different soil conditions could have some kind of effect on it
> > as well...IF it was.
> >
> > Versus sitting in a watershed plain next to an annually torrential
> > wash? Different soil conditions might create a difference in
> > weathering (though if it is, as you say, a mere four miles away, I
> > doubt there would be any difference at all), but horse urine effects
> > would be negligible at best...corrals are used sporadically at best
> > anyways, to say nothing of the fact that annual rainfall.
> > In fact, while the horse urine would be acidic, it would take
> > rain/moisture to disassociate the ions in order to actually create any
> > acidic effects - and as we all know, when it rains in Az, it
> > pours...and would wash all of the acid downriver and out of the
> > soil anyways.
> >
> > >I'm just saying that I for one, am not quite ready
> > to throw the "half-baked" theory in the trash....yet.
> >
> > Eh, I grant you that there's a small chance Adamana's a part of
> > Holbrook...in my opinion, very, very small.
> >
> > >Actually, the Adamana Meteorite was found 11 miles from Arntz (aka
> > Aztec). Not quite all the way to Adamana which is 13 miles "as the
> > meteor flies". (I did some remeasuring). And, if the Goodwater theory
> > is correct, then you are only talking about 4 miles. According to the
> > July 26, 1912 article on the Holbrook Argus: "There was a heavy
> > explosion similar to that of a heavy blast followed by a fuscillade of
> > smaller explosions which terminated in a thunder-like rumble of
> > approximately two minutes in duration." In Warren Foote's Preliminary
> > Notes of the July 19, 1912 Meteoric Fall at Aztec, Arizona, he writes:
> > "It was heard in Concho, St. Joseph, Woodruff, and Pinedale, some 40
> > miles away. One large explosion was quickly followed by several small
> > ones in rapid succession."
> >
> > Firstly, the strewnfield has varying descriptions in almost every
> > paper that I've seen. I just read a paper in which Kring stated that
> > the strewnfield was ~1.5 sq. miles, a writeup by the DeLanges that
> > states that it was ~1 by ~1/2 miles. I'm looking into Farrington - a
> > little hard for me while I'm at school ;)
> >
> > >Now it's more like 3 miles long by 1 mile wide and growing. Even Warren
> > Foote mentions this dimension in 1912.
> >
> > Again, conflicting reports...though by now, erosion could have made
> > the field that large even if it hadn't been as big to start out
> > with...that would explain the 'growing' aspect of it I guess. In any
> > case, I cannot consider myself a judge, seeing as I was not there at
> > the time of the fall, as were several well regarded scientific
> > figures, who gave conflicting reports.
> >
> > >Hmmm....I've never heard that before. I'd like to know where you
> > read/heard that information as that is interesting to me. According to
> > Foote: "The large and small stones, according to all answers received,
> > were said to be indiscriminately spread over the ground, without regard
> > to size. The violent disruptions near Holbrook might account for the
> > lack of such a separation...."
> >
> > If, as you say, there truly was no separation between sizes of
> > fragments, it would almost certainly rule out any possibility of a
> > larger mass having continued much farther than the already defined
> > strewnfield. Such a chaotic distribution could suggest nothing other
> > than a complete and catastrophic, if not instantaneous atmospheric
> > breakup. Any classic atmospheric fragmentation would, as you know,
> > create an organized strewnfield with larger stones at one end and
> > small at the other. If there is no distribution, there must have been
> > a very low and complete breakup - if large fragments did not even have
> > enough air-time to make it to one end of the strewnfield, how would
> > you expect another mass to proceed several miles farther? It would
> > have to be part of a much larger (several tens of kilograms at the
> > very minimum) fragment.
> >
> > >In recent years, say the last 40, the larger finds that I know of have
> > been about in the center of the known field and on both sides of the
> > tracks. I and others have found many smaller ones further north and
> > east of these larger stones. I would like to know where the main mass
> > was found, but I've never been able to dig that up yet. However, I've
> > never read or heard anywhere that it was found at the furthest point of
> > the field.
> >
> > I simply assumed that it was found in such a location based on all of
> > the arguments being put forth - if there is indeed no distribution
> > based on weight within the strewnfield, I see virtually no possibility
> > for Adamana being a part of the Holbrook fall, unless it was
> > previously found in the strewnfield and was later transported by
> > people. The physics of it simply don't work out.
> >
> > >With all the numerous explosions, why not another 11 miles? Some parts
> > must have still been ablating after the main explosion to have more
> > explosions. At say, 7 miles per second (just as an aribitrary figure),
> > it wouldn't take long to cover that distance. There is still quite a
> > bit of material still missing off of Haag's aerodynamic piece too. But,
> > certainly not enough to make it come close to being the main mass.
> >
> > Because almost every fall has numerous stages of breakup. Because
> > even within these falls, there is (to my knowledge) always a single
> > strewnfield, with very little deviation from the rule that larger
> > stones fall at the far end and small ones at the other.
> >
> > When you say 'explosions,' you do realize that you are referring to
> > sonic booms in most cases, do you not? The multiple 'booms' often
> > heard during falls are not due to the physical breakup of the
> > meteorite itself, but rather to the stones' breaking of the sound
> > barrier. Thus these multiple detonations heard were probably due to
> > the existence of a number of number of stones that were large enough
> > to retain some of their cosmic velocity for long enough to break the
> > sound barrier in an audible manner.
> > The initial large explosion heard would explain the initial sound
> > effects of the large body either simply passing overhead at a great
> > velocity or possibly it's violent fragmentation, whereas the rumbling
> > heard afterwards can certainly be attributed to the many fragments
> > that must have been large enough just after this explosion to still
> > retain the velocity needed to create sound effects of their own, on a
> > much smaller scale.
> >
> > >Huh? In the Holbrook Argus article, it states: "The sky was lightly
> > overcast with patches of high floating clouds, but immediately after the
> > explosion a smoky trail similar to the smoke of an automobile's exhaust
> > was visible. The trail disappeared in a LITTLE NORTH of east in
> > direction." Well, Arntz is ENE of Holbrook and Adamana is ENE of
> > Arntz. The strewn field and the railroad tracks are in a ENE
> > orientation. Drawing a line from Holbrook through Arntz takes you right
> > to Adamana....in fact, this line can possibly go a little bit north of
> > what is shown as Adamana on a topo map. (next to the railroad tracks
> > where the propane plant is).
> >
> > And I've read other reports stating that it followed a due East
> > path...figures. I wasn't there, and see no way how one can decide
> > between your sources and mine. This path, even if followed to a
> > ridiculous extent (you're going to be hard pressed to find a
> > strewnfield for a stony meteorite that's confirmed to be this long),
> > takes you quite a distance south of Adamana. But this all depends on
> > the accuracy of the reports....who could possibly know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> > On 2/27/07, DNAndrews <dna1 at cableone.net <mailto:dna1 at cableone.net>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason Utas wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All,
> > > There are a few things that separate Adamana from Holbrook in my
> > mind...
> > > The texture of the crust alone of Adamana versus that of Holbrook
> > > leaves me little doubt that the two could possibly be paired.
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> > I think you meant to say that "the two could NOT possibly be paired?
> > Not trying to argue, just think a few points need to be said.
> >
> > > The fusion crust of Adamana is a matte black, which contrasts
> > sharply
> > > with the crust of recently found Holbrooks, which exhibit a
> > typically
> > > blue/black almost shiny crust in most cases, often liberally spread
> > > with rust spots.
> > > The interior tells the same story - Adamana is a uniform brown, with
> > > chondrules poking out here and there. Recently found Holbrooks
> > tend
> > > to be less weathered internally, if not more externally, and their
> > > dark chondrules contrast starkly with the lighter matrix, creating a
> > > much more heterogeneous appearance than that of Adamana.
> >
> > If indeed the Adamana meteorite is the front piece of the
> > Holbrook, and
> > I'm NOT saying it is, then it would have the thickest primary
> > crust out
> > of any other portion of the fall. There are pictures of original
> > finds
> > that have chondrules as much as 5-7 mm in diameter. Also, one has to
> > keep in mind that it was found in a horse corral. I'm sure acidic
> > horse
> > urine and different soil conditions could have some kind of effect
> > on it
> > as well...IF it was. I'm just saying that I for one, am not quite
> > ready
> > to throw the "half-baked" theory in the trash....yet.
> >
> > > The location of the find....
> > > Fifteen miles is simply impossible, unless it was artificially
> > > transported.
> >
> > Actually, the Adamana Meteorite was found 11 miles from Arntz (aka
> > Aztec). Not quite all the way to Adamana which is 13 miles "as the
> > meteor flies". (I did some remeasuring). And, if the Goodwater
> > theory
> > is correct, then you are only talking about 4 miles. According to the
> > July 26, 1912 article on the Holbrook Argus: "There was a heavy
> > explosion similar to that of a heavy blast followed by a fuscillade of
> > smaller explosions which terminated in a thunder-like rumble of
> > approximately two minutes in duration." In Warren Foote's Preliminary
> > Notes of the July 19, 1912 Meteoric Fall at Aztec, Arizona, he writes:
> > "It was heard in Concho, St. Joseph, Woodruff, and Pinedale, some 40
> > miles away. One large explosion was quickly followed by several small
> > ones in rapid succession."
> >
> > > The mapped strewnfield was roughly one mile long by a half
> > mile wide.
> >
> > Now it's more like 3 miles long by 1 mile wide and growing. Even
> > Warren
> > Foote mentions this dimension in 1912.
> >
> > > The largest stone recovered, weighing in at ~14.5 lbs, was
> > found at
> > > the end of this ellipse.
> >
> > Hmmm....I've never heard that before. I'd like to know where you
> > read/heard that information as that is interesting to
> > me. According to
> > Foote: "The large and small stones, according to all answers
> > received,
> > were said to be indiscriminately spread over the ground, without
> > regard
> > to size. The violent disruptions near Holbrook might account for the
> > lack of such a separation...."
> >
> > > The possibility that anything made it farther than this stone
> > is great -
> >
> > In recent years, say the last 40, the larger finds that I know of have
> > been about in the center of the known field and on both sides of the
> > tracks. I and others have found many smaller ones further north and
> > east of these larger stones. I would like to know where the main mass
> > was found, but I've never been able to dig that up yet. However, I've
> > never read or heard anywhere that it was found at the furthest
> > point of
> > the field.
> >
> > > it wouldn't surprise me too greatly if a 20lber was found another
> > > quarter of a mile on (it could've buried itself on impact, etc), but
> > > to say that a smaller stone continued another fifteen miles
> > beyond the
> > > known end of the strewnfield is simply ridiculous,
> >
> > With all the numerous explosions, why not another 11 miles? Some
> > parts
> > must have still been ablating after the main explosion to have more
> > explosions. At say, 7 miles per second (just as an aribitrary
> > figure),
> > it wouldn't take long to cover that distance. There is still quite a
> > bit of material still missing off of Haag's aerodynamic piece
> > too. But,
> > certainly not enough to make it come close to being the main mass.
> >
> > > to say nothing of the fact that it is much too far north to even
> > > be near the same path as the body that created the Holbrook
> > strewnfield.
> >
> > Huh? In the Holbrook Argus article, it states: "The sky was lightly
> > overcast with patches of high floating clouds, but immediately
> > after the
> > explosion a smoky trail similar to the smoke of an automobile's
> > exhaust
> > was visible. The trail disappeared in a LITTLE NORTH of east in
> > direction." Well, Arntz is ENE of Holbrook and Adamana is ENE of
> > Arntz. The strewn field and the railroad tracks are in a ENE
> > orientation. Drawing a line from Holbrook through Arntz takes you
> > right
> > to Adamana....in fact, this line can possibly go a little bit
> > north of
> > what is shown as Adamana on a topo map. (next to the railroad tracks
> > where the propane plant is).
> >
> > Anyway, I just feel more investigating needs to be done to make a
> > decision whether "yea" or "nay" on the subject. Maybe Bob will
> > someday
> > have a little crumb analyzed for curiousities sake or someone will
> > make
> > another find well outside of the known strewn field.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >______________________________________________
> >Meteorite-list mailing list
> >Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 02 Mar 2007 01:23:17 AM PST