[meteorite-list] Meteorites 101-The Bolide and the Nuclear Bomb

From: Regine Petersen <fips_bruno_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <369980.53555.qm_at_web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi all,

can some of you explain to me the similarities of an exploding meteor and a nuclear bomb? There seem to be a lot of references and explosive asteroid events are often measured in Hiroshima bombs to scare the hell out of people.

I always asked myself the question why that is? Is there not a different process at work, that of nuclear fission (atom bomb) and fusion (hydrogen bomb)?

But when considering Tunguska, the aftermath seems to be very similar. I would like to know more about this: There has been accelerated tree growth due to the radiation, have there been any cases of mutations or illnesses of animals? Is such a radiation as severe as that of a bomb? And what is the difference / similarity of Tektites and Trinitite?

Regine


--- Chris Peterson <clp at alumni.caltech.edu> schrieb am Mo, 17.1.2011:

> Von: Chris Peterson <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorites 101-Bolide
> An: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Datum: Montag, 17. Januar, 2011 21:54 Uhr
> Just to reiterate, the term "bolide"
> is best avoided when precision is required- not because it
> is undefined, but because it is overdefined! It means one
> thing to (most) meteoriticists, something else to
> geologists, and yet something else to meteorologists.
>
> Like "planet", it is a word best left without formal
> definition, and used only with qualification.
>
> AFAIK the IAU is not considering a definition for bolide. A
> couple of years ago they were considering revising the
> definition of "meteor" to include the body itself during its
> atmospheric passage (which most now use "meteoroid" for). I
> don't know where things are on that proposal. In any case, I
> hope they just leave "bolide" alone, since even with a
> formal definition applied to meteoritics, we aren't likely
> to get any less confusion.
>
> If you're talking casually, in a known context, use
> whatever terms seem reasonable. But if you want to make
> things clear, something like "a 30-second fireball with
> extensive fragmentation and subsequent acoustic events" is
> always going to be a better choice than "an impressive
> bolide".
>
> Chris
>
> *****************************************
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "MEM" <mstreman53 at yahoo.com>
> To: "Chris Peterson" <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>;
> <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorites 101-Bolide
>
>
> > I largely agree, Chris, and like the overuse of the
> term "oriented", it seems
> > everything has become a "bolide"-- minor fireballs and
> major impactors alike.
> > The author on the work around the Chesapeake impactor
> adopted the term "bolide"
> > in his works and I believe that was a bastardized
> usage-- not based in
> > traditional usage.? IMO a crater producing
> impactor is NOT a bolide unless it
> > produces an explosive terminus at altitude. An
> asteroid which excavates an 8
> > mile deep crater likely doesn't "bolide" upon
> encountering maximum aerodynamic
> > pressure, and no ground observer is likely to survive
> to tell us if there was
> > one anyway!? Tagish Lake was by all accounts a
> super bolide having both the
> > magnitude and the report. I remember seeing the term
> bolide used in 19th century
> > descriptions, of course "areolite" was also a term
> used back then but I think
> > bolide --suitably defined has a use in literature,
> still.
> >
> > I think the IAU should probably adopt a definition for
> bolide which narrows the
> > distinctions to reflect not just magnitude but
> disruption and audible report.
> > Traditionally "bolide" was used to describe a fireball
> that terminated in a
> > bright flash and /or explosive report.? Having
> seen a traditional "bolide" up
> > close and personal, I can attest that it is not your
> regular fireball class
> > event. The "explosive" event is distinct from a sonic
> boom.
> >
> > In preparation for this reply, I revisited the wiki
> page and I have a lot of
> > disagreement regarding the adequacy or magnitude alone
> being the distinction.
> > If we are to abandon the term bolide then we need a
> convention to describe a
> > fireball which terminates in an expanding/explosive
> disintegration with audible
> > report. IMO.
> >
> > Elton
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
>
Received on Mon 17 Jan 2011 04:39:07 PM PST