[meteorite-list] New Iron (Ataxite) SHRAPNEL

From: John Gwilliam <jkg2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:30:41 -0700
Message-ID: <20100623142848.CTJX20564.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net_at_fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>

Hello List,
Good point Steve.
This post reminded me of something that happened here in Arizona
several years back. A new and enthusiastic meteorite hunter contacted
me about a handful of iron fragments he had found in Yavapai County
and thought (hoped) they might be meteorites. I sanded, polished and
etched, or attempted to etch, one of the larger piece. When the
etchant was applied, the polished surface turned blue. Odd. With
the finders permission, the specimen was taken to ASU for more
definitive testing. Components turned up that are not present in
meteorites but were strikingly similar to industrial steel. Further
research by the finder determined that a large steel boiler had
exploded in the area back when mining was active in the area.
The hunter learned some valuable lessons about researching areas you
might be hunting in and that scientific study is imperative.



Best,
John Gwilliam

At 07:12 AM 6/23/2010, Steve Schoner wrote:
>That would be a great find as a new ataxite (low nickel) with an
>impact crater. But until the analysis is in I have my doubts as
>the shrapnel part has me wondering...
>
>This area of the desert was most probably flown over by bombers back
>in WWII. Could that hole be the product of a bomb that was
>dropped? Bombers often unloaded hung up bombs in odd locations.
>
>At any rate if I were searching any area close to a WWII battlefield
>it would be wise to keep that in mind, as any unexploded ammo or
>even mines might still be active.
>
>Would not want any to be the last casualty of WWII.
>
>Steve Schoner
>www.petroslides.com
>IMCA #4470
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:04:49 -0400
>From: Mexicodoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Iron (Ataxite) SHRAPNEL
>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Message-ID: <8CCE0441CEA650F-9DC-529B at webmail-m092.sysops.aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
>Hi Svend, List,
>
>"Zooming out the sat-image, one notes that the general wind direction
>in the area
>is north by northeast to south to southwest. Thus, any Aeolian
>deflation or wind
>shaped sedimentation pattern around the crater would have to be
>oriented along
>this axis. This appears not to be case. Instead we see a radial pattern
>with the
>crater as its center."
>
>Svend has described poetry in motion; I am going to save his
>description for reruns with a cup of coffee and savour the detailed
>analysis, perhaps when life is at a kind moment and I am out in the
>desert observing the night sky and inventing my own constellations for
>family members.
>
>The impact rays are probably already covered quite well, but if it is
>not clear, let me try to add this:
>
>We have a central source of material and under Richard's hypothesis,
>wind blowing down points on the rim to form these "rays". We look at
>the rays and the first thing we notice is that they are as quite well
>defined. Svend's comments about the character of the prevailing wind
>direction, pavement and bedrock aside, let's try the strategy of proof
>by contradiction strictly under Richard's hypothesis:
>
>Suppose this is a sandy or powdery place where the wind can blow out
>spokes from the sand source(hole, crater, pit, whatever). Looking at
>the rays from all directions we are forced to reason that the wind must
>be blowing from all those directions or else we wouldn't have a hub and
>spoke design around the crater.
>
>But ... if the wind is blowing sand and powder spokes from all
>directions, why would the spokes be linear, nearly as well formed
>distally as near the crater? Because wind from all the directions of
>the compass would cause a scattering proportional to the distance from
>the crater, perhaps curves if it was a windstorm from another
>direction, and not a sharp delineation towards the ends of the rays
>like a bicycle wheel. The absence of this is a contradiction ... the
>backbones of the rays are too straight and well defined to support
>Richard's idea. A much simpler explanation is that someone painted them
>on a something solid ground - who better than Mother nature responding
>to the impact?
>
>Kindest wishes Svend, and Richard, thanks
>Doug
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Refinance Now 4.0% FIXED!
>$160,000 Mortgage for $633/mo. Free. No Obligation. Get 4 Quotes!
>http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/4c221695111c213e178st03duc
>______________________________________________
>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]
Received on Wed 23 Jun 2010 10:30:41 AM PDT