[meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 77, Issue 82

From: Owen Busch <fowenseeb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:47:05 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU102-DS544C5AF148547D7FB431FA15D0_at_phx.gbl>

--------------------------------------------------
From: <meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:00 AM
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 77, Issue 82

> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Regmaglypts (abudka at nycap.rr.com)
> 2. Re: Meteorite Photography (Must read!) (al mitt)
> 3. Re: Meteorite Photography (Must read!) (John Gwilliam)
> 4. Re: Updated Lorton trajectory (Mike Hankey)
> 5. Re: Updated Lorton trajectory (GeoZay at aol.com)
> 6. Re: Updated Lorton trajectory (Chris Peterson)
> 7. Re: Meteorite Photography (Must read!) (Dark Matter)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 7:18:42 -0500
> From: <abudka at nycap.rr.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Regmaglypts
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Message-ID: <20100127121842.62073.292942.root at cdptpa-web26-z01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> My Response Jan 27, 2010
>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Regmaglypts
>
> Jason and All,
>
> 1. My reference to ?bubbles? is to morphology, NOT voids. Another
> meteoritic example of ?bubble morphology effects? is pallasitic olivines
> such as Springwater and Imilac.
>
> A thought experiment: Once again, envision a melt mass of olivine and
> nickel-iron solidifying under microgravity conditions ? surface energy
> dominates gravity.
>
> On cooling, olivine begins to solidify before nickel-iron. However, since
> olivine and iron-nickel share a range of temperatures where both are still
> at least partially liquid (mushy stage), as cooling continues,
> still-plastic olivines can be surrounded by and sometimes infiltrated and
> pushed apart by liquid nickel-iron.
>
> Cut and polished sections of Springwater and Imilac reveal this as a
> relatively complex process. Observe 120 angles between some olivines,
> evidence of a system governed by surface energy. Some olivine boundaries
> are straight (interior polyhedral shapes); some are circular (a sphere
> minimizes surface area to volume ratio); some straight and curved (perhaps
> on the outer surface of the olivine mass). See my "Stepping Back in Time"
> article in Meteorite magazine Nov. 2003, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 21-22 or see it
> in the publications list on my website at http://meteormetals.com
>
> 2. There is NO WAY that the thermal history of a metal can be calculated
> in reverse, despite hundreds of papers in the meteoritics literature since
> the original paper of Osmond and Cartaud in 1904 and the more recent,
> detailed papers on ?metallographic cooling rates!? That is more than 100
> years of circular reasoning! Industrial metallurgists would be a lot
> happier if this backward calculation were possible. It is NOT!
>
> 3. Speaking of industrial metallurgists, do another experiment: show a
> cut section of any nickel-iron or stony iron meteorite to a modern
> INDUSTRIAL metallurgist. Ask him or her to describe the microstructure,
> without you giving them any ?meteorite words? or concepts. Then, Listen!
> Next, give that person one of the metallic meteorite papers in the
> meteoritics literature (other than mine) and see if that person can even
> understand the language and concepts. Meteoritics metallurgy has sealed
> itself inside an old language, not accessible to today?s busy, industrial
> metallurgists. To quote one of my industrial metallurgist friends who is
> a casting expert and who has become a meteorite collector, "meteorite
> metallurgy is in the Stone Age."
>
> We need a NEW METALLURGY for meteorites! Imagine what we could learn!
>
> Phyllis Budka
> http://meteormetals.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:50:27 -0500
> From: "al mitt" <almitt at kconline.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
> To: "meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID: <4C1498A179534FB8AD95D58999BD156E at StarmanPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Erik and all,
>
> I'd think just the opposite would be correct. A higher f-stop (f 22, 18
> etc.) would create a better depth of field and the more open your iris is
> on
> your camera (lower f stop, 1.8, 2.0 etc.) the less focused your items
> would
> be. I think you just stated it backwards. Best!
>
> --AL Mitterling
> Mitterling Meteorites
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Fisler" <erikfwebb at msn.com>
> To: "meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:51 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
>
>
>
> The third thing is auto-blending. For those of you who have SLR's you will
> notice that shooting at a higher F-stop like F1.8 or F2.8 is a lot sharper
> than shooting at a lower F-stop like F22. The problem is, you might have
> to
> drop your F-stop to make sure the whole meteorite is in focus.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:27:54 -0700
> From: John Gwilliam <jkg2 at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
> To: "al mitt" <almitt at kconline.com>, "meteorite-list"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID:
> <20100127142802.OCDN4995.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net at fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Al is right on this one. The higher the F-stop number, the greater
> the depth of field is, i.e more of a three dimensional object will be
> in focus. The drawback to this is less light enters the lens thus
> requiring a longer shutter speed. And, if your not careful, a
> background that is too close can be in focus as well. There are many
> different ways to take good quality pictures of
> meteorites, experimentation is the key.
>
> Best,
>
> John Gwilliam
>
> At 06:50 AM 1/27/2010, al mitt wrote:
>>Hi Erik and all,
>>
>>I'd think just the opposite would be correct. A higher f-stop (f 22,
>>18 etc.) would create a better depth of field and the more open your
>>iris is on your camera (lower f stop, 1.8, 2.0 etc.) the less
>>focused your items would be. I think you just stated it backwards. Best!
>>
>>--AL Mitterling
>>Mitterling Meteorites
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Fisler" <erikfwebb at msn.com>
>>To: "meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:51 PM
>>Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
>>
>>
>>
>>The third thing is auto-blending. For those of you who have SLR's
>>you will notice that shooting at a higher F-stop like F1.8 or F2.8
>>is a lot sharper than shooting at a lower F-stop like F22. The
>>problem is, you might have to drop your F-stop to make sure the
>>whole meteorite is in focus.
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Visit the Archives at
>>http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> Regards,
>
> John Gwilliam
>
> Some people are born on third base
> and go through life thinking they hit a triple.
> [Bob Dylan]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:36:04 -0500
> From: Mike Hankey <mike.hankey at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Updated Lorton trajectory
> To: Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites at cox.net>
> Cc: meteorite list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f0a794131001270636u4a5c45f2x59fd330d5c129553 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I guess this explains why it did so much damage?
>
> On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites at cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I finally received a good second image of the Lorton bolide smoke
>> trail taken immediately after the fall (and before upper atmospheric
>> winds distorted it). More importantly, the two images I have were
>> taken from sufficiently different vantage points that a good 3D
>> solution could be computed. (My early, somewhat hurried "first-cut"
>> at the trajectory was based on only a single image, and a cobbling
>> together of 50+ witness reports.) That first solution wasn't bad
>> as far as the flight direction (NNE -> SSW); however, as steep as
>> I made the entry angle, I didn't make it steep enough.
>>
>> The Lorton meteoroid entered at a surprisingly steep angle -- about
>> 15 degrees from vertical! If upper atmospheric winds had been
>> light, this would have made for a very tight strewnfield. But
>> those winds were anything but light at the time of the fall. For
>> instance, at 11-km altitude, the jet stream was over 90 knots!
>> Even down at 5-km altitude, the wind was over 40 knots.
>>
>> So here are my new impact predictions as a function of mass.
>> The distance and bearing columns are in miles and degrees,
>> respectively, relative to the impact coordinates of the 308-gram
>> mass:
>>
>> Mass ? Longitude Latitude Distance Bearing
>> ----- ?--------- -------- -------- -------
>> ?3 g ? ?-77.1383 ?38.7130 ? 4.05 ? ?77.9
>> 10 g ? ?-77.1635 ?38.7104 ? 2.68 ? ?75.5
>> 30 g ? ?-77.1804 ?38.7077 ? 1.75 ? ?74.0
>> 100 g ? -77.1976 ?38.7043 ? 0.80 ? ?71.8
>> 300 g ? -77.2116 ?38.7007 ? -0- ? ? ?N/A
>> ?1 kg ? -77.2282 ?38.6965 ? 0.94 ? ?252.1
>> ?3 kg ? -77.2415 ?38.6923 ? 1.72 ? ?250.2
>> 10 kg ? -77.2560 ?38.6874 ? 2.57 ? ?249.0
>>
>> As before, these coordinates (when you connect the dots) trace
>> out a curve of the estimated strewn field centerline. Unfortunately,
>> the lightest (and presumably more numerous) fragments would have
>> been windblown onto Ft. Belvoir. But there is still some room ENE
>> of the doctor's office that is not on military land, and plenty
>> of real estate in the "heavy direction" (WSW) if you're feeling
>> lucky. ?--Rob
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:06:29 EST
> From: GeoZay at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Updated Lorton trajectory
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Message-ID: <2d0da.49d0e6d8.3891b075 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>>>guess this explains why it did so much damage?<<
> Mike, I haven't been following this too hard, but am curious as to what
> you mean about it explains the damage?
> GeoZay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:30:36 -0700
> From: "Chris Peterson" <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Updated Lorton trajectory
> To: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID: <96AA8D2F4DFA4D119FA3B2AB92563AE2 at bellatrix>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> How so? A meteorite's impact speed is a function of its shape and mass
> only,
> and is unrelated to the details of its entry speed and angle. A meteorite
> lands at an angle that deviates from vertical by at most a few degrees,
> with
> that angle entirely determined by the near-ground wind speed and
> direction.
>
> Chris
>
> *****************************************
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Hankey" <mike.hankey at gmail.com>
> To: "Rob Matson" <mojave_meteorites at cox.net>
> Cc: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Updated Lorton trajectory
>
>
> I guess this explains why it did so much damage?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:37:06 -0700
> From: Dark Matter <freequarks at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
> To: John Gwilliam <jkg2 at cox.net>
> Cc: al mitt <almitt at kconline.com>, meteorite-list
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Message-ID:
> <822da19a1001270837o7a38cb98p4be9e086fb666762 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi All,
>
> Actually there is a further concern here. Although when a lens is
> stopped down to its max it does have the greatest depth of field, but
> it is also not at its sweet spot for sharpness. Usually a stop or two
> less than max provides the sharpest image the lens is capable of. Here
> is more about this:
>
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:27 AM, John Gwilliam <jkg2 at cox.net> wrote:
>> Al is right on this one. ?The higher the F-stop number, the greater the
>> depth of field is, i.e more of a three dimensional object will be in
>> focus.
>> ?The drawback to this is less light enters the lens thus requiring a
>> longer
>> shutter speed. ?And, if your not careful, a background that is too close
>> can
>> be in focus as well. ?There are many different ways to take good quality
>> pictures of meteorites, ?experimentation is the key.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> John Gwilliam
>>
>> At 06:50 AM 1/27/2010, al mitt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Erik and all,
>>>
>>> I'd think just the opposite would be correct. A higher f-stop (f 22, 18
>>> etc.) would create a better depth of field and the more open your iris
>>> is on
>>> your camera (lower f stop, 1.8, 2.0 etc.) the less focused your items
>>> would
>>> be. I think you just stated it backwards. Best!
>>>
>>> --AL Mitterling
>>> Mitterling Meteorites
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Fisler" <erikfwebb at msn.com>
>>> To: "meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:51 PM
>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Photography (Must read!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The third thing is auto-blending. For those of you who have SLR's you
>>> will
>>> notice that shooting at a higher F-stop like F1.8 or F2.8 is a lot
>>> sharper
>>> than shooting at a lower F-stop like F22. The problem is, you might have
>>> to
>>> drop your F-stop to make sure the whole meteorite is in focus.
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John Gwilliam
>>
>> Some people are born on third base
>> and go through life thinking they hit a triple.
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [Bob Dylan]
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> 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
>
>
> End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 77, Issue 82
> **********************************************
>
Received on Wed 27 Jan 2010 06:47:05 PM PST