Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth
Hola Sterling, E.P., All, > Concerning recent impacts (<12,000 years old), what > I've noticed over the years is that some people go > into denial, and those denial mechanisms are sometimes > really pretty bizarre. It's tough to accept on a gut > level that as things now sit you, your family, your > friends, everyone you ever knew or loved can be blown > off the face of the Earth in an instant without a > minutes warning. I think you missed my point, because I accept this fully. > But that's exactly how it is, Yeah... > and > that's exactly what happened to some of our fellow > human beings in the recent past. Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their having been blasted to death *anywhere.* > So, Jason, you wrote: > > >Right, but seeing as the effects from the event of > >which we speak differ greatly from those of your > >comparison, it seems an unworthy one to make. Yes, > an >unknown phenomena might create such a set of > effects > >as are geologically evident, but just saying "it's > >possible" is something that I acknowledge as well; we > >all know that Tunguska events occur and that, > >evidently, astronomical events that create the > >geological evidence that we've found occur. But that > >still in no way ties the two together. > > Fact is, Jason, the Tunsguska impactor was viewed > coming in, and spherules from it have been recovered. > Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't a flying > saucer. No shit. It was most likely a piece of a burnt-out comet. My point was that saying that there was some sort of cosmic event that left no geologic trace of an impact and saying that Tunguska left no trace (whatsoever) proves nothing, given that 1) the geologic evidence for each event is completely different, and that 2) we have no proof that what occurred was due in any way to an event similar to that which occurred in Tunguska. > Sterling, you wrote: > > >Atmosphere not a factor in that size range. > > Yes it is. Another factor in lunar crater distribution > is later coverage by dust and removal by later > impacts. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...that craters on Earth are hidden by ejecta blankets from other craters that have hidden them, or that ejecta doesn't move as easily (or moves more easily?) through an atmosphere...what? > Jason, you wrote: > > >I don't know where you draw the 1km crater line, as, > >in my opinion, such a body might well break up if it > >entered the atmosphere at a shallow angle, but who's > >to say > > Well, airbursts can be more devastating then ground > hits, in terms of overall effect. We know compression > propagation in impactors, and 1 kilometer crater seems > to be a good guess as to airburst versus ground > impact. No. Sorry, but that's only true to a limit. A 10km impactor isn't going to explode in the atmosphere for any reason that I could conceivably think of, and it's going to make one hell of a lot of destruction upon impact... A 1km object would most likely break up (as opposed to explode in a violent airburst) if it managed to enter the atmosphere at a slim angle without glancing off, as the energy required to vaporize such a large amount of matter is simply too large as to be reasonable. I don't think there's a great chance of it breaking up in general, but if we're talking about cometary material, I do hear that it's friable... > Jason, you wrote: > > > A thirty-degree impact is highly unlikely, > > unsupported and most likely wrong. It's less likely than an impact occurring at a greater degree measure, unless I'm mistaken. My point is that looking at all possible impacts, the likelihood of an impact occurring at an angle of ~30 degrees or less is simply unlikely. Possible, but unlikely - as in odds are that it would not occur this way. I'm not an idiot. > > and I'm thinking that an iron impactor would do a > bit > more damage than a comet. > > wrong. See airburst versus ground impact, above. Wrong, because such a comet would (in all likelihood) not airburst. See above. Also, since we're talking about airbursts, why not look into them vs craters. An airburst of a ridiculously large (lets say a 1km object, for the hell of it) size would devastate, what, maybe a thousand square miles? Few thousand? Not enough to do any real damage on the scale that you mention (death of 90% of all humans on the continent, etc). Climate change due to dust released by such an airburst might cause trouble I suppose, but it was an ice-age anyways; they knew how to deal with cold. An impact, on the other hand, should it hit either water or land, would be infinitely more destructive. Instead of 1km^3 of material in the atmosphere (since we're talking about a comet anyways, much of that would be water, not particulates), you would get that 1km^3 as well as whatever ejecta that was thrown out or vaporized (causing global wildfires, etc - the sort of fires that would occur *only locally* should we be talking about an airburst, becau
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunguska-- the movie
Hi, Darren, List Where I read this, I just walked around saying "Ah-ha! Ah-ha!" for about five minutes. I watched their eight movies and with particular interest, the cross-sectional ones that show the "curly tongues of fire" extending down. I am irresistibly reminded of all those old medieval woodcuts that show "curly tongues of fire" extending from a fireball in the sky, you know the ones -- the ones we tend to dismiss as the fanciful exaggerations of an ignorant age. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean that they can't be a good observer of it. And, as this simulation shows, apparently there are things we still don't understand. Imagine, the notion that we don't already know everything worth knowing... Secondly, I thought about all the arguments about whether ANY meteoritic phenomenon can cause a fire. We've certainly had lots of such arguments here on the List. Again, it's the old descriptions of "columns of fire" descending from the heavens that we dismiss; and again, these simulations greatly resemble "columns of fire" descending from the heavens! There was a thread here on the List some time back about a suggestion (not mine) that the many simultaneous destructive fires (over 11 states and Canada) on October 8, 1871, had been ignited some meteoritic phenomenon. That is the date of the Great Chicago and Peshtigo fires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshtigo_Fire among others. Frankly, the evidence and witness reports strongly suggest some unknown aerial mechanism, but I was at a loss to account for how very small high-velocity cometary fragments could cause fires. [Note the date: the peak hours of the Draconids or "Giacobinids" from the rapidly disintegrating Comet Giacobini-Zinner, which is above the horizon all day.] Well, here's the mechanism I could never find. More than that, the Sandia simulation shows another effect argued about on this List. In the simulation that shows sections of internal vortexes, you can see toroidal rings of plasma forming and rotating around their own central axis and surrounding the "column of fire," which would then behave as the huge toroidal windings of an immense electromagnet, the rotating plasma rings being in effect currents of charged particles. You can also see how they resist being pinched shut, how they force the material inside, along the axis, up and out of the "plasma tube" so formed. In a big impact, that "tube" would extend out the top of the atmosphere and be evacuated, and the "vacuum" would collect surface materials from around the crater, suck them up, and eject them from the planet into space at escape velocity plus. This is how, say, chunks of Mars could get started toward the Earth without being violently shocked and even shattered by the impact, a long- mysterious question without a good answer. I think Sandia may have found just such a mechanism in a larger scale version of their Tunguska-sized model. I think, for example, about all the evidence that EP (Grondine) collected about the destruction the French town of Bazas in the year 580 by "fire from the sky." The objections to his impact interpretation are the lack of ground evidence: craters, fragments, and so forth. An airburst with a thermal pulse is usually offered as the mechanism, but it's really hard to get an airburst low enough to get a hot thermal pulse without getting a crater along with it and big blast effects; it's like a kind of balancing act, just enough without too much, and it's not convincing. But the Sandia simulations show that those ancient descriptions of "tongues of fire from the heavens" were almost certainly literally true! The folks at Sandia made (rightly) the point that even a small impactor can be much more destructive than we presently think, but secondarily it changes the way we must evaluate the historical record. I wonder how many years (decades) it will take for this lesson to sink in? Sterling K. Webb -- - Original Message - From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:42 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Tunguska-- the movie Videos on the site. http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html Sandia supercomputers offer new explanation of Tunguska disaster Smaller asteroids may pose greater danger than previously believed ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The stunning amount of forest devastation at Tunguska a century ago in Siberia may have been caused by an asteroid only a fraction as large as previously published estimates, Sandia National Laboratories supercomputer simulations suggest. "The asteroid that caused the extensive damage was much smaller than we had thought," says Sandia principal investigator Mark Boslough of the impact that occurred June 30, 1908. "That such a small object can do this kind of destruction suggests that smaller asteroids are something to consi
[meteorite-list] Rocks from Space Picture of the Day - December 20, 2007
http://www.rocksfromspace.org/December_20_2007.html **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD - Ebay Auctions ending
Good Morning All I have auctions ending tonight, ebay ID catchafallingstar.com. Auction style were started at just at 99 Cents!!! In addition there a lot of Buy-it-now offerings as well. http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZcatchafallingstar.com Full recap with photos on Paul and Jim's website: http://www.meteorite.com/meteorites/ebay/catch_a_falling_star_meteorites.htm We still have meteorite coins, including the new NWA 482 Lunar coin available at: http://www.meteoritecoins.com/ Thanks for looking Jim Strope 421 Fourth Street Glen Dale, WV 26038 http://www.catchafallingstar.com __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
.. arrived today and I must tell you that it is out-of-this-world! My 11.9-gram endcut can keep you busy for hours!!! Its dark-brown crust still shows traces of black, glossy fusion crust and the abundant colorless, pale bluish or even pale greenish but *limpid* maskelynite crystals clearly testify to its intense shock history. This complex, polymict eucrite breccia shows all kinds of clasts but the most exotic feature of my endcut is what only two of the pieces showed and what Stefan Brandes so aptly described as a "cosmic spider web": These elongated, acicular (augite?) crystals have an average length of 0.7 mm but some are longer than 1 mm and some are arranged in a star-like pattern with up to nine or ten elongate crystals radiating from a central point or "nucleus". Troilite is present in some places and this endcut also sports a medium-gray angular, lithic clast measuring a whopping 5.5 mm in longest dimension. Under the microscope it is "marbly" in appearance. Furthermore there are a few tiny specks of (Ni-free) metal and another oddity is this: One translucent maskelynite crystal measuring 0.9 mm contains numerous, milky-white very small (length ca. 0.05 mm) worm-like features (almost like rice grains) that are reminiscent of air bubbles caught in frozen water while trying to ascend to the surface! What a meteorite! Take care, Bernd __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
I second Berndt's opinion. I have never seen a eucrite like this. My slice also captivated me under the microscope-amazing complexity and variety! Easily an order of magnitude more beautiful under the microscope than any other eucrite I've seen. Jim Baxter > .. arrived today and I must tell you that it is out-of-this-world! My > 11.9-gram endcut can keep you busy for hours!!! Its dark-brown crust > still shows traces of black, glossy fusion crust and the abundant > colorless, pale bluish or even pale greenish but *limpid* maskelynite > crystals clearly testify to its intense shock history. > > This complex, polymict eucrite breccia shows all kinds of clasts but the > most exotic feature of my endcut is what only two of the pieces showed > and what Stefan Brandes so aptly described as a "cosmic spider web": > > These elongated, acicular (augite?) crystals have an average length of > 0.7 mm but some are longer than 1 mm and some are arranged in a > star-like pattern with up to nine or ten elongate crystals radiating > from a central point or "nucleus". > > Troilite is present in some places and this endcut also sports a > medium-gray angular, lithic clast measuring a whopping 5.5 mm in longest > dimension. Under the microscope it is "marbly" in appearance. > > Furthermore there are a few tiny specks of (Ni-free) metal and another > oddity is this: > > One translucent maskelynite crystal measuring 0.9 mm contains numerous, > milky-white very small (length ca. 0.05 mm) worm-like features (almost > like rice grains) that are reminiscent of air bubbles caught in frozen > water while trying to ascend to the surface! > > What a meteorite! > > Take care, > > Bernd > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorites, Sun, Moon, Stars, and Comets in World Languages updated 20DEC07
Dear List, The world word lists have been added to and updated: Meteorites: 97 languages http://meteoritesjapan.com/metdict.aspx Sun: 205 languages http://meteoritesjapan.com/sol.aspx Moon: 203 languages http://meteoritesjapan.com/luna.aspx Stars: 169 languages http://meteoritesjapan.com/asterpage.aspx Comets: 103 languages http://meteoritesjapan.com/comet.aspx If you have previously boomarked the Sun and Moon pages please note that the page address have changed; please remark in your bookmarks; thanks. Thank you for looking! Main Website Homepage: www.meteoritesjapan.com Best to you all. Please help if you can. Dirk Ross...Tokyo __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Saturn's Rings May be Old Timers
Larry wrote: "something like 30 years ago. It would be nice if people gave credit where credit was due." Hi Larry, List, I agree with your complaint that it is a more satisfying existence to give credit when expressing ideas, to those upon whose shoulders one is peering from. The press and 'discussion group' media are better at PR and innocent BS than they are at doing science and annotated research... This theory is much older than our generations; the elements are all covered in James Clerk Maxwell's treatise on the subject. I guess when all the "Fluffy and Mittens" are distilled from the new age of "I discovered this because I was able to explain it to myself (and include everyday unrelated analogies like cats named Fluffy when explaining it to you)", the new development here is the suggestion that some of the rocks orbiting in Saturn's rings look clumpy and rubbly (not solid-have spaces) enough from close range spectral work. Thus - the investigators contribution is the claim of finally observing 'direct' evidence of the long-ago proposed thought that collisions are happening (A) to contribute to ring formation and keeping in mind "destruction" of the rings =accretion into moonlets(B) too. Here's the gist for the record: Excerpted from Maxwell (first contemplated 1847 when he was 16 with Tait, rigorously submitted 1857, published 1859): "We conclude, therefore, that the rings must consist of disconnected particles; these may be either solid or liquid, but they must be independent. The entire system of rings must therefore consist either of a series of many concentric rings, each moving with its own velocity, and having its own systems of waves, or else of a confused multitude of revolving particles, not arranged in rings, and CONTINUALLY COMING INTO COLLISION [A] with each other... ...The final result, therefore, of the mechanical theory is, that the only system of rings which can exist is one composed of an indefinite number of unconnected particles, revolving round the planet with different velocities according to their respective distances. These particles may be arranged in series of narrow rings, or they may move through each other irregularly. In the first case, THE DESTRUCTION [B] WILL BE VERY SLOW... ... it will be worth while to investigate more carefully whether Saturn's Rings are permanent or transitionary elements of the Solar System, and whether in that part of the heavens we see celestial immutability, or terrestrial corruption and generation, and the old order giving place to new before our own eyes. " ref: On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings (1859) On theories of the constitution of Saturn's Rings. (1862) Commentary from Maxwell (1857): http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Maxwell.html "I have effected several breaches in the solid ring, and now am splash into the fluid one, amid a clash of symbols truly astounding. When I reappear it will be in the dusky ring, which is something like the siege of Sebastopol conducted from a forest of guns 100 miles one way, and 30,000 miles the other, and the shot never to stop, but go spinning away round a circle, radius 170,000 miles..." Best wishes, and Life, Alba, Doug - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ron Baalke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Meteorite Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Saturn's Rings May be Old Timers Hi All: This idea is not new. Don Davis et al. published a similar model more than 20 years ago. It is also interesting how similar the artist concept of the rings in the article is to one done by Bill Hartmann something like 30 years ago. It would be nice if people gave credit where credit was due. Larry On Wed, December 19, 2007 2:41 pm, Ron Baalke wrote: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-149 Saturn's Rings May be Old Timers Jet Propulsion Laboratory December 12, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - New observations by NASA's Cassini spacecraft indicate the rings of Saturn, once thought to have formed during the age of the dinosaurs, instead may have been created roughly 4.5 billion years ago, when the solar system was still under construction. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] QMIG update
G'day, Bob - You wrote: > All you have to do is look up the Queensland finds on > metsoc to realise which of the major players and > doyens of the meteorite community have been involved > in illegal export - you'd be surprised once you > figure out exactly who... Well, don't keep us in suspense - do tell. And be sure to let us know how they did it - I think that many here would like to know that. Also, please mention which meteorites, as if there's ever any kind of effort to reclaim the specimens, it will probably change the way some collectors publicly catalogue their collections. seems to me there should be as many specimens coming out of the desert of Australia as from NWA E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Looking for 2"x2"x3/4" Clear plastic/acrylic cases (Don Merchant)
Try Mike Gallant's site; http://www.migacorp.com/micromount_displays.htm Gary __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie
Hi Sterling: You wrote: > I wonder how many years (decades) it will take for > this lesson to sink in? I'm not optimistic. Go back to this archive, and look at some the of posts here on impacts from reasonably intelligent people. The Hibbens "discussion", the Homo heidelbergensis "discussion", and currently the holocene start impacts and mammoth pepperer "discussion". Human intelligence is sometimes used to create mechanisms of denial. For example, when faced with the hardest of hard evidence, the human mind will deny impending death. Then comes bargaining, acceptance. (I can't remember the exact stages any more - stroke, you know.) The most intense denials that I've run into came from people fixated spending hundreds of billions on flying a few men to Mars. This is usually accompanied with their assertion that "we can't do anything about them if we find them". The problem is that one can't loose these arguments, one simply can't run off to a sunny beach somewhere, as the number of people that will die is too high, and thus one can't simply just walk away until the later stages follow. Movies work good sometimes, but other times people will just avoid them, as they generally avoid the news broadcasts today. Did Dale Carneigie ever offer any advice on how to handle people in denial? There has been some examination of the process of paradigm shift. PS - Barringer crater is a mile across, not a kilometer, as I wrote earlier. Thus, assuming neutrons are released in impact, and that this results in higher C14, then from the radio-calibration correction charts Firestone cited, the mammoth peperrer impact crater, should it still exist, should be less than a mile across. good hunting all, E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Lightest material
Hi Listers, A question if I might please... What is the lightest-weight major constituent matrix material found in meteorites? Is it a type of hypersthene possibly? Does someone have an unusually light-weight specimen they would share information on? Thanks in advance to anyone offering information on this. Michael Murray __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, then you take the pieces back to your fire
Hi Jason - You wrote: >Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their >having been blasted to death *anywhere.* Denial takes many forms. > I'm not an idiot. No one said you were. It simply that your efforts to rationalize away the deaths from these impacts is reducing your replies to incoherence. > A cometary airburst of a body, say, 1km in diameter, > simply doesn't make any sense. Physically > speaking (I'm currently taking college-level > physics), it just doesn't make sense. Maybe you know > of some laws regarding atmospheric resistance that I > don't, but unless some such laws exist, I'm > disinclined to believe just about everything you say. I never said that a 1 kilometer comet airburst. I used to get upset when people put words into my mouth, as I always used to attribute it to my inability to communicate clearly. Now I realize that it has a different cause. >We don't know much about cometary composition, but > there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they > formed around iron cores, I never said that. > They were mostly in the past. Impact rates have been > declining. I'm not saying that there's no chance > that we could be wiped out tomorrow. > What I'm saying is that the odds are better for us > living out the next day than they were, say, two > billion years ago. That's a fact. No it isn't. You forgot to consider comet impact when estimating the odds. Once again, estimates of the impact hazard are exactly that, estimates, and are known to be weak. >Because you're misunderstanding just about everything >I say? No, see my comment on my communication skills, above. It's for a different reason. good hunting all, E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, just right
"It's even hard to predict the exact results..." Hola Listees, Yes, this is what Larry and I had already stated, Sterling. While on the subject of James Clerk Maxwell, I wanted to add two interesting footnotes, (1) Decated to Sterling, a guitar fellow with Maxwell (and not to forget E.P.'s question, here's a "simplest" answer and it's singable), Maxwell's guitar song parody of Robert Burns: "Gin a body meet a body Flyin' through the air. Gin a body hit a body, Will it fly? And where?... ...Gin a body meet a body Altogether free, How they travel afterwards We do not always see." stanzas from: "Rigid Body Sings" (Gin= "if") http://www.edinburghacademy.org.uk/curriculum/chemistry/sciencecentre.htm http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/in-memory-of-edward-wilson-who-repented-of-what/ (2) Maxwell, giving credit to a little help from Laplace, had discussed correctly the accretion theory of meteoroids and asteroids, moonlets while on the subject of Saturn in the 1850's, proved that from a nebula they could not form, that first there would have to be something provoking condensation. But he moved on, after being influenced by his foray into theoretical meteoritics(dynamics) (this, actually the problem of Saturns rings and the question of formation of moonlets (a.k.a., meteoroids), in a huge collection is what led him to problems like the "spokes" in Saturns rings, and wave treatment of so many particles. Lucky for us, he then worked out what these sorts of waves looked like and behaved requiring the concept of time and for the speed of light to be a constant and thus took humanity a step forward by bringing an understanding and unification of the electric and magnetic theories. Einstein admitted: "The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field." So, even though we lost one aspiring and very young meteoriticist destined for greatness, the view of the world was never the same after Maxwell...all probably inspired by the question of how gases could accrete into bodies and the theoretical rubble he proposed as the composition of Saturn's rings and their stability - Best wishes, quantifiably yours Doug - Original Message - From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "E.P. Grondine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, just right Hi, EP, List, EP wrote: ...the gravitational effects of the Earth+Moon system should draw items in, gradually changing their orbits from those passing near to ones which intersect. The problem with the near miss, the close approach, the graze is that, while they will modify the orbit of the object passing by, it can (and will) change that orbit but it will do so in any (and every) direction. A close pass by a little asteroid may mean you'll never seen it again or it may come back aimed right at you. It's even hard to predict the exact results of a close pass when you know the approach elements. It's really too touchy. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
Any chance you might share a pic or two? Sounds interesting. Michael Murray micro hunter of SW Colorado __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ebay Big Claxton ending
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZpaleoasis accepting fair-market offers on all of the above. fear not the high prices- after all, it was 20-cent listing day, so it's go big, or or home. those prices are merely a formality- not a reality. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
Hi everyone, I am finally getting back in order after the Tokyo show, jet-lag has set me back a day or two. One thing of note from the show, there is an explosion of fake Moldavites being made in China now. We saw several jewelery dealers selling them, incredible perfect looking large pieces, all would be nearly impossible to identify except the dealers were stupid enough to put them all out at the same time. They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when put side by side, you could clearly see them as identical, made in a mold. I have found one of the same on ebay right, at a very high price. http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_W0QQitemZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Watch out. Michael Farmer __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] More on Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite
Michael M. wrote: "Any chance you might share a pic or two? Sounds interesting." Hello Michael and List, Greg already did so some days ago, on Thu, Dec 13 - see below. Oh, and while we are at it: Meanwhile I noticed that this "cosmic spider web" is not limited to the cut surface of my endcut but that it is ubiquitous all over the weathered dark-brown crust...a very strange phenomenon indeed! And another really odd feature in(!) the crust of my endcut of NWA 4883 is something that Greg also mentioned in his description on EBay: "prominent clearish 'crystals' that seem to pop out all over the exterior of the stone". Here's Greg's post and his links once again: Dear List and Maskelynite-rich eucrite lovers, In my busy week, and after writing the description for my new Maskelynite- rich Polymict Breccia Eucrite, NWA 4883, I forgot I had earlier taken some very close-up photos of interesting features on a slice. Here they are and worth a look: NWA 4883 Images from a polished slice, magnification level indicated on lower left of photos: Possible vesicle or where metal has eroded away: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4883/nwa4883ves.jpg Close-up of a eucritic clast next to matrix, interesting crystal structure: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4883/nwa4883mag1.jpg High resolution of a different eucritic clast: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4883/nwa4883mag2.jpg General matrix, could spend days exploring under a microscope! http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4883/nwa4883mag3.jpg Enjoy! Greg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
Mike wrote: They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when put side by side, you could clearly see them as identical, made in a mold. I have found one of the same on ebay, at a very high price. http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_ W0QQitemZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem You can clearly recognize this one is an artifact (a fake) because the greenish color is way too "monotonous" and the grooves too "regular" !!! Bernd __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Greg Hup é 's gorgeous NWA 48 83 eucrite ...
Christmas Geetings, Bernd, Kan't you give us a photo link, now that you have us All tripping over our tongues? Best wishes, Michael on 12/20/07 5:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > .. arrived today and I must tell you that it is out-of-this-world! My > 11.9-gram endcut > can keep you busy for hours!!! Its dark-brown crust still shows traces of > black, glossy > fusion crust and the abundant colorless, pale bluish or even pale greenish but > *limpid* > maskelynite crystals clearly testify to its intense shock history. > > This complex, polymict eucrite breccia shows all kinds of clasts but the most > exotic > feature of my endcut is what only two of the pieces showed and what Stefan > Brandes so > aptly described as a "cosmic spider web": > > These elongated, acicular (augite?) crystals have an average length of 0.7 mm > but some > are longer than 1 mm and some are arranged in a star-like pattern with up to > nine or ten > elongate crystals radiating from a central point or "nucleus". > > Troilite is present in some places and this endcut also sports a medium-gray > angular, > lithic clast measuring a whopping 5.5 mm in longest dimension. Under the > microscope > it is "marbly" in appearance. > > Furthermore there are a few tiny specks of (Ni-free) metal and another oddity > is this: > > One translucent maskelynite crystal measuring 0.9 mm contains numerous, > milky-white > very small (length ca. 0.05 mm) worm-like features (almost like rice grains) > that are > reminiscent of air bubbles caught in frozen water while trying to ascend to > the surface! > > What a meteorite! > > Take care, > > Bernd > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Modalities
Hi Mike, I had heard this and passed it on well over a year ago. Collectors And dealers alike seemed to promptly ignore me and acted as though I were spreading some horse pucky as a sales pitch. So, I just shut Up about it. However, your having SEEN these fakes at a show and passing it on might finally get the picture through to people. It should be noted that unscrupulous dealers will, no doubt, avoid the blunders of the dealers you saw at the show and market these stinking pieces of glass effectively forthwith. Faux Moldivite has been perfected. This means purchasing Moldivite of any quality should be done only through dealers Who KNOW the source is several years old (this perfecting of Fakes happened about 2 or 3 years ago). In addition, my old time source - a miner of Moldivite, Told me about this and said the most experienced Moldivite Minor cannot distinguish the fakes. At the same time he told Me another piece of information that also has been ignored: the mining productivity suddenly went dry after hundreds of years. The miners in Czechoslovakia now hold onto everything they have left and the extremely limited finds they now make. What has been seen in the market the last couple of years is Either the last of the stock "on hand" or fakes. Obviously, the "stock on hand" will eventually run out and what you will be Left with is the poorer quality material and the fakes. BUMMER! This is by far worse than the rip off of collectors by dealers Who sold etched Campo material as Baygoria, ruining ET's Investment. (He had the only mass, had it cut and then was Grossly undersold with this fake material). If you think you have Baygoria and you didn't get it from ET or a dealer who got it >From ET, you do NOT have Baygoria - you have etched Campo. But this crapola with Moldivite has unlimited repercussions. Only etched iron collectors - and ET, of course - are affected by The Baygoria rip off. With Moldivite, the entire world is effected, as Moldivite has been very popular long before people started "collecting" Tektites. It has a long history (Moldivite in the crown of the Queen Of England, a Moldivite rosary owned by the Pope, etc.) and everyone who does collect tektites must have a number of Moldivites represented in his/her collection for even a very basic tektite collection. BEWARE. Michael on 12/20/07 11:12 AM, Michael Farmer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi everyone, I am finally getting back in order after > the Tokyo show, jet-lag has set me back a day or two. > One thing of note from the show, there is an explosion > of fake Moldavites being made in China now. We saw > several jewelery dealers selling them, incredible > perfect looking large pieces, all would be nearly > impossible to identify except the dealers were stupid > enough to put them all out at the same time. > They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when put > side by side, you could clearly see them as identical, > made in a mold. > I have found one of the same on ebay right, at a very > high price. > http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_W0QQit > emZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > Watch out. > Michael Farmer > > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie
on 12/20/07 10:12 AM, E.P. Grondine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > PS - Barringer crater is a mile across, not a > kilometer, as I wrote earlier. Thus, assuming neutrons > are released in impact, and that this results in > higher C14, then from the radio-calibration correction > charts Firestone cited, the mammoth peperrer impact > crater, should it still exist, should be less than a > mile across. My understanding is it is much closer to .8 mi in diameter. That is a very significant difference in area. Best wishes, Michael PS: If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people WAY above average in both intelligence and educational Achievement. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
Not to forget, the small bubbles in the real Moldavites and the "Schlieren" in the real Moldavites, like the Schlierenbands in some Ataxites Bubbles: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung3.htm Schlieren: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung2.htm Best regards Andi Mike wrote: They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when put side by side, you could clearly see them as identical, made in a mold. I have found one of the same on ebay, at a very high price. http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_ W0QQitemZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie wItem You can clearly recognize this one is an artifact (a fake) because the greenish color is way too "monotonous" and the grooves too "regular" !!! Bernd __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
Yes, these fake Chinese pieces are perfect, with great color and no flaws. That lack of flaws should be the first indication of authenticity. They are melting glass and pouring molds. Michael Farmer --- Andreas Gren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to forget, the small bubbles in the real > Moldavites and the "Schlieren" > in the real Moldavites, like the Schlierenbands in > some Ataxites > > Bubbles: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung3.htm > > Schlieren: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung2.htm > > Best regards > Andi > > > Mike wrote: > > They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when > put side by side, you > could clearly > see them as identical, made in a mold. I have found > one of the same on ebay, > at a very > high price. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_ > W0QQitemZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie > wItem > > You can clearly recognize this one is an artifact (a > fake) because the > greenish > color is way too "monotonous" and the grooves too > "regular" !!! > > Bernd > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth
Hi, Jason, and the List, Don't want to do a full-court press here or have a knock down drag out. The point of "atmosphere not a factor in that size range" is merely that an impactor that makes a one kilometer crater is not going to be stopped from reaching the surface by the Earth's atmosphere; that's all. As for the angle of an impact, that is a datum obscured by the event. There is no way to derive the angle of impact from the resulting crater in any except the smallest and weakest events. Any angle of incidence over 15 degrees produces a round, level crater. At 15 degrees or less, elliptical craters are produced. Meteor Crater (aka Barringer) is low angle: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Metic..30Q.567R Gene Shoemaker's classic 1960 analysis that established it was an impact crater, still a hot dispute "in the day." A history of the dispute, and in particular the finding that angle of incidence has no effect on crater formation can be found in: http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/barringer-meteor-crater "Barringer and his 12-year-old son set out to experiment with the formation of such craters by firing bullets into clumps of rock and mud. Regardless of the firing angle, the Barringers demonstrated (and published their results in both popular and scientific magazines) that the resulting craters were substantially round. More definitive proof was subsequently provided in 1924 by calculations of astronomers who determined that forces of impact at astronomical speeds likely resulted in the explosive destruction of the impacting body. Importantly, regardless of the angle of impact, the result of such explosions would leave rounded craters." Such experimental crater-forming data show that impacts above a certain energy level (a rather low level, too) preserve only the fact of the total energy required to produce them, as any really big explosion does. Such factors as angle of incidence, direction of travel, velocity of impactor, and/or type of impactor may inferred from circumstantial traces in a recent, well-preserved crater, if such traces are present. Usually this only happens in "small" craters, like the Arizona one. The bigger the crater, the less the chance of such indicators surviving. Jason wrote: > the likelihood of an impact occurring at an angle > of ~30 degrees or less is simply unlikely. Possible, > but unlikely - as in odds are that it would not occur > this way. I'm not an idiot. Impactors large enough to make a respectable crater do not have an entry affected by aerodynamic forces nor altered by gravity after they encounter atmosphere (and very little before). They do not deviate from their cosmic vector in any substantial way. ANY angle of incidence with the surface of the Earth is totally random and ANY angle of incidence is as equally likely as ANY other. Basic knowledge. Look it up. The "slow" 16 km/s 500-meter rock heads for the future 3.98 mile diameter crater site as straight as a bullet from a gun, pretty much. If you average all the directions together, you get 45 degrees, just because you have to pick some direction! That's what everybody does. I just got tired of typing in "45," so I typed in "30" -- it makes no difference. 30, 60, all the same. This is an event with only ONE parameter: Kinetic Energy. You've obviously read too much about the little rocks that leave littler rocks behind for us to collect, with their long curving paths and their aerodynamic braking, their "falls" and all that meteorite frew-fah. Crater-makers are not like that at all. For all practical purposes, think "straight line" segment of a very large radius curve. Jason wrote: > An airburst of a ridiculously large (lets say a 1 km > object, for the hell of it) size would devastate, what, > maybe a thousand square miles? Few thousand? > Not enough to do any real damage... Tunguska was an object of perhaps 100 meters; its zone of greatest destruction, the tree-flattening-and- charring zone, was 2200 square kilometers, or 850 square miles. The lethal-to-humans zone (LD 50) was about ten times bigger than that. The flash was as bright as the Sun 80 miles away. It was observed 600 miles away. The barometric shock wave traveled around the planet 2.5 times before dying out. (Stop beating the horse...) And you think that an object one thousand times bigger (10^3) would be "not enough to do any real damage"? My only suggestion: think again. As for the general cause of all this argument, some possible impact events in "recent" times proposed by Firestone and an increasing number of collaborators, that can only be determined by decades of field work yet to be done and, hey! we can't do it. All we are doing is sitting around like a bunch of ancient Greeks arguing from "basic principles." This inductive approach (the Greeks' greatest logical flaw) is essentially of very limited utility. What we can do is follow the hunt and wait for the results, science s
[meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
Check out the photo with the article. http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS01/712200310/1002 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, just right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:29:13 -0600, you wrote: >If a comet makes a close pass to Earth once, will it eventually make closer >and closer passes until we collide? Why? But if enough of them gang up against us, they can toss us out in the cold! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071219-planet-swap.html Let's just hope they never unionize... __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New and True Aubrite - NWA 4799 - AD
Dear List Members, For my final Rare and Special offering of 2007, but certainly not the least, I would like to introduce NWA 4799. It is Northwest Africa's first and only "true" Aubrite. This meteorite finally puts to rest to what a true NWA aubrite should look like, I am even offering a "100% Money Back Guarantee" that the classification will remain as "aubrite". I feel I must spell this out in writing from the start because of all of the EL3 confusion. Click on the link below to read the entire classification and see what is available. Here are a couple of links to close-up views of some of the enstatite grains which NWA 4799 is almost entirely made up of: 26x magnification: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4799/nwa4799c.jpg 20x magnification: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4799/nwa4799d.jpg 32x magnification: http://www.lunarrock.com/nwa4799/nwa4799e.jpg Here is the direct eBay link to the largest available pieces of NWA 4799, some are polished, some are complete individuals (awesome when viewed under a microscope!!): http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=%22nwa+4799%22&category0= I forgot to include "meteorite" in the subject line of these eBay auctions so you need to type "NWA 4799" in quotes in order to see just them when you search from eBay, otherwise just click the above link. Thank you for a great year, I hope to be able to bring more rare and exotic meteorites to you next year. Happy Holidays! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, then you take the pieces back to your fire
E.P, All, > >Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their > >having been blasted to death *anywhere.* > > Denial takes many forms. Show me proof. Show me blackened bones. Oh, that's right - there isn't any. As I said before, I won't say that such events haven't happened, because in all likelihood, they have - but we *have no proof.* This is not denial. This is fact. > > I'm not an idiot. > > No one said you were. It simply that your efforts to > rationalize away the deaths from these impacts is > reducing your replies to incoherence. Rationalize them away? I'm not trying to say anything other than the fact that you're attributing a mass hominid death to an airburst/impact scenario (you seem to have changed your mind in this regard), when the geologic effects that we observe can not be attributed to any known extraterrestrial or terrestrial mechanism. I'm not saying they didn't die. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter if or how they died. I'm saying we don't know how they died. That's not denial. It is nothing more than plainly admitting to what we do and do not know - which is, in my (evidently raving and incoherent) mind, the right path to take. > > A cometary airburst of a body, say, 1km in diameter, > > simply doesn't make any sense. Physically > > speaking (I'm currently taking college-level > > physics), it just doesn't make sense. Maybe you > know > of some laws regarding atmospheric resistance > that I > don't, but unless some such laws exist, I'm > > disinclined to believe just about everything you > say. > > I never said that a 1 kilometer comet airburst. How big would it have to be to release enough energy to reduce the hominid population of the continent to 1/10 of its original number? I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst, but I would assume that it would take a body in the ten km range to generate enough energy. A 1km object, the one used in my examples, although not big enough to create the observed effects, is far above the limit in size of what could conceivably detonate i nan airburst scenario without having reached the ground. Hell, you're the one saying it was an airburst - you tell me how big the body was. > I used to get upset when people put words into my > mouth, as I always used to attribute it to my > inability to communicate clearly. Now I realize that > it has a different cause. See above. > >We don't know much about cometary composition, but > > there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they > > formed around iron cores, > > I never said that. And I quote: "It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals in a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the iridium is, after all." So...you did say that Bad memory? > > They were mostly in the past. Impact rates have > been > declining. I'm not saying that there's no > chance > > that we could be wiped out tomorrow. > > What I'm saying is that the odds are better for us > > living out the next day than they were, say, two > > billion years ago. That's a fact. > > No it isn't. You forgot to consider comet impact when > estimating the odds. Once again, estimates of the > impact hazard are exactly that, estimates, and are > known to be weak. Well we know for a fact that there were more large bodies in the early solar system billions of years ago than there are today simply from mathematical models, though we may not be able to prove such numbers precisely with vast numbers of dated craters. The models are still sound; it would take a good few pages of my typing to explain them fully, and, to be frank, I see no point in wasting the time. > >Because you're misunderstanding just about everything > >I say? > > No, see my comment on my communication skills, above. > It's for a different reason. Well, evidently I haven't been able to truly "rationalize" these deaths (that so clearly plague my subconscious) and they are thus driving me to "incoherence..." Right. If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the laws of physics, scientific method, not to mention basic logic, we might get somewhere. Until that day, good day. Jason > good hunting all, > E.P. Grondine > Man and Impact in the Americas > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
Hi Bernd, Jim, Michael and all who love exotic meteorites, Thank you Bernd for your great observations of NWA 4883, a fantastically gorgeous maskelynite-rich eucrite. The "pools" of maskelynite are awesome to look at through a microscope along with the rest of this beauty. Michael asked where one could see photos, click at this link and you will see the only remaining 20 pieces left with links to slices and micro close-ups: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=%22nwa+4883%22&category0= Thank you all who have purchased this truly fun meteorite from me. Happy Holidays! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: "Michael Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ... Any chance you might share a pic or two? Sounds interesting. Michael Murray micro hunter of SW Colorado __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Lightest material
Hi List, I think I may have answered my own question at least partially. Probably the matrix of a c-chondrite is the lightest in weight. I guess I wasn't thinking about them when I asked that. Anyone have anything else that is a lightweight? Mike __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:16:45 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >They are melting glass and pouring molds. Hence, mold-a-vites. See, they are being up-front about it after all! __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie
Hi, Michael, List, Michael wrote: > If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the > HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of > Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people > WAY above average in both intelligence and educational > Achievement. 1. PLEASE, nobody start a GW thread. I'm not trying to do that. No thread. I'm biting my tongue here, people. 2. To state that a scientific issue can no longer be evaluated, discussed, or even argued, to imply that individuals who do so are mentally defficient or uneducated, to attempt to invalidate any reasoned viewpoint that does not agree with your own, is: a) bad manners b) bad judgment c) bad science d) ideological compulsion (otherwise known as -- no, wait, I'm biting my tongue...) 3. The comment was gratuitious and totally unnecessary in a discussion of the 0.7499950384-mile diameter Barringer crater. Let's just settle it and call it three-quarters of mile... Sterling K. Webb (from the deck of my barge as I drift down De Nile...) - Original Message - From: "Michael L Blood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "E.P. Grondine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite List" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie on 12/20/07 10:12 AM, E.P. Grondine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > PS - Barringer crater is a mile across, not a > kilometer, as I wrote earlier. Thus, assuming neutrons > are released in impact, and that this results in > higher C14, then from the radio-calibration correction > charts Firestone cited, the mammoth peperrer impact > crater, should it still exist, should be less than a > mile across. My understanding is it is much closer to .8 mi in diameter. That is a very significant difference in area. Best wishes, Michael PS: If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people WAY above average in both intelligence and educational Achievement. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
Check out the photo with the article. http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS01/712200310/1002 Here's an upsampled copy of the photo: http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/dec2007meteormaybe.jpg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth
Hola Sterling, All, >Don't want to do a full-court press here or have > a knock down drag out. The point of "atmosphere > not a factor in that size range" is merely that an > impactor that makes a one kilometer crater is not > going to be stopped from reaching the surface by > the Earth's atmosphere; that's all. At a shallow enough angle, I might beg to differ...especially if we're talking about friable cometary material, but I really couldn't say for sure given my range of knowledge. >As for the angle of an impact, that is a datum > obscured by the event. There is no way to derive > the angle of impact from the resulting crater in any > except the smallest and weakest events. Any angle > of incidence over 15 degrees produces a round, > level crater. At 15 degrees or less, elliptical craters > are produced. I know as much...my point is that I might expect more damage due to the greater the angle of impact (to the horizontal - it was pointed out to me that we must be clear about whether we're talking about degrees in relation to horizontal vs. vertical) due to the combined effects of less atmospheric drag as well as greater force being turned directly into heat as opposed to moving ejecta farther, as would occur with an elliptical crater. I may well be wrong, but it seems to me that both of these might have something of an effect on the climatological effects of an impact. >Meteor Crater (aka Barringer) is low angle: > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Metic..30Q.567R > Gene Shoemaker's classic 1960 analysis that > established it was an impact crater, still a hot > dispute "in the day." A history of the dispute, > and in particular the finding that angle of incidence > has no effect on crater formation can be found in: > http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/barringer-meteor-crater >"Barringer and his 12-year-old son set out to > experiment with the formation of such craters by > firing bullets into clumps of rock and mud. Regardless > of the firing angle, the Barringers demonstrated > (and published their results in both popular and > scientific magazines) that the resulting craters > were substantially round. More definitive proof > was subsequently provided in 1924 by calculations > of astronomers who determined that forces of > impact at astronomical speeds likely resulted in > the explosive destruction of the impacting body. > Importantly, regardless of the angle of impact, > the result of such explosions would leave rounded > craters." I've been collecting meteorites for about ten years now; I know... >Such experimental crater-forming data show > that impacts above a certain energy level (a rather > low level, too) preserve only the fact of the total > energy required to produce them, as any really big > explosion does. Such factors as angle of incidence, > direction of travel, velocity of impactor, and/or type > of impactor may inferred from circumstantial traces > in a recent, well-preserved crater, if such traces are > present. Usually this only happens in "small" craters, > like the Arizona one. The bigger the crater, the less > the chance of such indicators surviving. I do read books, time permittingthis is a nice breakdown, but I know all of it already. > Jason wrote: > > > the likelihood of an impact occurring at an angle > > of ~30 degrees or less is simply unlikely. Possible, > > but unlikely - as in odds are that it would not occur > > this way. I'm not an idiot. > >Impactors large enough to make a respectable crater > do not have an entry affected by aerodynamic forces > nor altered by gravity after they encounter atmosphere > (and very little before). They do not deviate from their > cosmic vector in any substantial way. ANY angle of > incidence with the surface of the Earth is totally random > and ANY angle of incidence is as equally likely as ANY > other. Basic knowledge. Look it up. The "slow" 16 km/s > 500-meter rock heads for the future 3.98 mile diameter > crater site as straight as a bullet from a gun, pretty much. 1) I know that meteorites coming in at completely random angles. My point was simply that you appeared to have chosen a particular angle of entry for your calculations that in my mind seemed as though it might not represent the maximum possible amount of devastation given the size and composition of the impactor. My point was that the odds of a given impactor entering the atmosphere at *that* angle were small and that the likelihood of a body entering the atmosphere at a different angle that might be more penetrating, at least with regards to an ice impact, might be greater. >If you average all the directions together, you get 45 > degrees, just because you have to pick some direction! > That's what everybody does. I just got tired of typing in > "45," so I typed in "30" -- it makes no difference. 30, > 60, all the same. This is an event with only ONE parameter: > Kinetic Energy. Of course... >You've obviously read too m
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie
Hi Sterling and all, Sterling, you are right about my comment. Please accept my apology. Agreed: No GW thread! Sincerely, Michael on 12/20/07 3:26 PM, Sterling K. Webb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Michael, List, > > Michael wrote: > >> If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the >> HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of >> Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people >> WAY above average in both intelligence and educational >> Achievement. > > 1. PLEASE, nobody start a GW thread. I'm not trying > to do that. No thread. I'm biting my tongue here, people. > > 2. To state that a scientific issue can no longer be evaluated, > discussed, or even argued, to imply that individuals who do so > are mentally defficient or uneducated, to attempt to invalidate > any reasoned viewpoint that does not agree with your own, is: > a) bad manners > b) bad judgment > c) bad science > d) ideological compulsion (otherwise known as -- no, > wait, I'm biting my tongue...) > > 3. The comment was gratuitious and totally unnecessary > in a discussion of the 0.7499950384-mile diameter Barringer > crater. Let's just settle it and call it three-quarters of mile... > > > Sterling K. Webb > (from the deck of my barge > as I drift down De Nile...) > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael L Blood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "E.P. Grondine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite List" > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:48 PM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie > > > on 12/20/07 10:12 AM, E.P. Grondine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> PS - Barringer crater is a mile across, not a >> kilometer, as I wrote earlier. Thus, assuming neutrons >> are released in impact, and that this results in >> higher C14, then from the radio-calibration correction >> charts Firestone cited, the mammoth peperrer impact >> crater, should it still exist, should be less than a >> mile across. > My understanding is it is much closer to .8 mi in diameter. > That is a very significant difference in area. > Best wishes, Michael > PS: If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the > HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of > Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people > WAY above average in both intelligence and educational > Achievement. > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
Hi Bernd, Jim, Michael and all who love exotic meteorites, Thank you Bernd for your great observations of NWA 4883, a fantastically gorgeous maskelynite-rich eucrite. The "pools" of maskelynite are awesome to look at through a microscope along with the rest of this beauty. Michael asked where one could see photos, click at this link and you will see the only remaining 20 pieces left with links to slices and micro close-ups: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=%22nwa+4883%22&category0= Thank you all who have purchased this truly fun meteorite from me. Happy Holidays! Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault - Original Message - From: "Michael Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ... Any chance you might share a pic or two? Sounds interesting. Michael Murray micro hunter of SW Colorado __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
Hi, This is a photo of basalt from Mike's pen pal, Mr. Gregory. (And 'Yes', basalt can have a magnetic attraction.) http://meteorite-identification.com/images/basalt-close.jpg And basalt from the (not) venusmeteorite site (now collaborating with Mr. Gregory ) : http://www.venusmeteorite.com/TVM-lot1-012a.jpg http://www.venusmeteorite.com/bonus2.jpg Now, if you want to see a really good wrong: http://meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong1.jpg http://meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong2.jpg best, ken Darren Garrison wrote: Check out the photo with the article. http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS01/712200310/1002 Here's an upsampled copy of the photo: http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/dec2007meteormaybe.jpg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
Sorry for the dup. I didn't know the url needed a 'www'. Hi, This is a photo of basalt from Mike's pen pal, Mr. Gregory. (And 'Yes', basalt can have a magnetic attraction.) http://www.meteorite-identification.com/images/basalt-close.jpg And basalt from the (not) venusmeteorite site (now collaborating with Mr. Gregory ) : http://www.venusmeteorite.com/TVM-lot1-012a.jpg http://www.venusmeteorite.com/bonus2.jpg Now, if you want to see a really good wrong: http://www.meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong1.jpg http://www.meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong2.jpg best, ken Darren Garrison wrote: Check out the photo with the article. http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS01/712200310/1002 Here's an upsampled copy of the photo: http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/dec2007meteormaybe.jpg __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie
Global Warming is not the issue. Causes, including human, continue to be contentious. Jerry Flaherty - Original Message - From: "Michael L Blood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "E.P. Grondine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite List" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Tunsguska the movie on 12/20/07 10:12 AM, E.P. Grondine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS - Barringer crater is a mile across, not a kilometer, as I wrote earlier. Thus, assuming neutrons are released in impact, and that this results in higher C14, then from the radio-calibration correction charts Firestone cited, the mammoth peperrer impact crater, should it still exist, should be less than a mile across. My understanding is it is much closer to .8 mi in diameter. That is a very significant difference in area. Best wishes, Michael PS: If you want a lesson in denial, read the archives on the HUGE number of list members regarding the denial of Global Warming. And this is a list consisting of people WAY above average in both intelligence and educational Achievement. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
so sad to see delusional people who think that their common worthless rock is worth millions. If Randall is involved with this new "Venus Meteorite", then this will be a hoot and a holler! Sit back and enjoy the ride. Michael Farmer --- Ken Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > This is a photo of basalt from Mike's pen pal, Mr. > Gregory. > (And 'Yes', basalt can have a magnetic attraction.) > http://meteorite-identification.com/images/basalt-close.jpg > > And basalt from the (not) venusmeteorite site > (now collaborating with Mr. Gregory ) : > http://www.venusmeteorite.com/TVM-lot1-012a.jpg > http://www.venusmeteorite.com/bonus2.jpg > > Now, if you want to see a really good wrong: > http://meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong1.jpg > http://meteorite-identification.com/images/wrong2.jpg > best, > ken > > Darren Garrison wrote: > > Check out the photo with the article. > > > > > http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS01/712200310/1002 > > > > Here's an upsampled copy of the photo: > > > > > http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/dec2007meteormaybe.jpg > > __ > > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Typical large meteoroid entry angle
Hi, Rob, Jason, List, I meant angles to be referenced to the horizon. Zenith = 90 degrees; Horizon = 0 degrees. I also mean a local polar coordinate system with 0, 0 at ground level, crater center. Probably a flat Earth too, while we're at it. "If it was good enough for..." Rob, I'm assuming here that the degeneracy you're referring to is "areal" or should that be "area-al"? You divvy the sky up into patches of equal area rather than "square degrees" (which start out large and almost-square trapedezoids at the horizon and end up as tiny elongated triangles at the pole), and assign an equal probability to each equal area. Hmm... Just discovered there's a word for that: "symptetic." Never did find "area-al" or "areal;" too confusing to use, I imagine. For those not annoyed but intrigued by symptetic maps, go to this URL and look at Jupiter: http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~goldberg/projections/ Or see all the different ways of trying to preserve areas (or distance) here (applet requires Java): http://www.btinternet.com/~se16/js/tissot.htm Rob wrote: > this is a common misconception... Every physicist I ever knew does it. I pulled out my favorite textbook, 783 pages, 1995, on the solar system by a man that I took courses from... well, never mind how long ago. Right there, 45 degrees is described as the "average" incidence of meteoroids and later it's called "typical," more of an intuition than an assertion, but he always uses 45 degrees; everybody does. I even said that to Jason in my Post -- "That's what everybody does." And that is a true statement; it IS what physicists do, just like we generalize everything to the spherical case. But it's obviously dead wrong, once you think about it. The problem is... you never think about it! I even went and did a proof to be certain. This has been my religious moment for the day. Sterling K. Webb --- - Original Message - From: "Matson, Robert D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite-list" Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Typical large meteoroid entry angle Hi Sterling and Jason, (I'd say "List", too, but I'm pretty confident that this won't get through to the list from my work e-mail.) Haven't really been following your discussion in detail, but the entry angle issue deserves a comment or clarification: Sterling writes: > As for the angle of an impact, that is a datum obscured by the event. > There is no way to derive the angle of impact from the resulting crater > in any except the smallest and weakest events. Any angle of incidence > over 15 degrees produces a round, level crater. At 15 degrees or less, > elliptical craters are produced. That has been my understanding as well; that the entry angle has to be quite shallow in order to produce a non-circularly-symmetric crater. Jason wrote: > the likelihood of an impact occurring at an angle of ~30 degrees or > less is simply unlikely. Possible, but unlikely - as in odds are that > it would not occur this way. I'm not an idiot. I e-mailed him privately last night inquiring as to whether this 30 degrees you guys were talking about was measured from horizontal or vertical -- makes a huge difference to the correct answer, and I was hoping that he could save me some time digging through the archives to find out which was meant. However, based on your comments below I now assume that the 30 degrees is measured from horizontal, in which case Jason is mistaken. Sterling writes: > ANY angle of incidence with the surface of the Earth is totally > random and ANY angle of incidence is as equally likely as ANY other. > Basic knowledge. Look it up. Here, Sterling, you're also mistaken. Not all angles of incidence are equally likely. All *azimuth* angles are equally likely, but spherical coordinate system degeneracy means that there are more ways to come in shallower than 45 degrees than steeper. > If you average all the directions together, you get 45 degrees, > just because you have to pick some direction! No, you don't, though this is a common misconception. The correct answer is exactly 30 degrees. Half the possible entry angles are shallower than 30 degrees, half are steeper. So you actually had the right answer when you typed "30" instead of "45". ;-) --Rob __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew - get your fire going real good
Hi Jason, list - "If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the "laws of physics, scientific method, not to mention " basic logic, we might get somewhere. Thanks for the compliment, Jason. I don't think "we" are going to be able to get anywhere. "Show me proof. Show me blackened bones. "Oh, that's right - there isn't any. ""As I said before, I won't say that such events "haven't happened,because in all likelihood, they have "- but we *have no proof.* "This is not denial. This is fact. What "we" pretty well know is that Jason's assertion is not a fact, and that he is exhibiting denial. "Rationalize them away? I'm not trying to say anything "other than the fact that you're attributing a mass "hominid death to an airburst/impact scenario (you seem "to have changed your mind in this regard), For the 10,900 BCE event Sterling brought up airburst, but only as an example of how little evidence can remain from a pretty big impact. I've pretty well always spoken about multiple cometary impactors, and a change in the north Pacific Current. >"I'm saying we don't know how they died. But we do, as absolute physical evidence has been demonstrated. Jason's reactions here are similar to those some have had to the dinosuars' extinction, where even though you have a big hole in the Earth, its always something else that killed them. It's probably going to take decades, as Sterling pointed out, and will only be accepted by some long after "we" are dead. >That's not denial. ahem. >I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst, Then why doesn't Jason shut the hell up, and leave the discussion to those who at least have an approximate knowledge of the dynamics of airburst? The answer, again, is denial. > >We don't know much about cometary composition, but > > there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they > > formed around iron cores, > > I never said that. >And I quote: >"It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals in a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the iridium is, after all." >So...you did say that The big differences between "the cores of the cometissimals in a comet have a nice metal content" (my words) and "they formed around iron cores" (Jason's words) are pretty clear to native speakers of English. >Well we know for a fact that there were more large >bodies in the early solar system billions of years ago >than there are today simply from mathematical models, >though we may not be able to prove such numbers >precisely with vast numbers of dated craters. >The models are still sound; it would take a good few >pages of my typing to explain them fully, and, to be >frank, I see no point in wasting the time. Sterling did that in one paragraph, off the top of his head, wasting no time. But in his lengthy reply, Jason still avoids the topic of cometary impact. >Well, evidently I haven't been able to truly >"rationalize" these deaths (that so clearly plague my >subconscious) and they are thus driving me to >"incoherence..." A meeting of minds turned out to be possible after all, as here is a point on which Jason and I agree! Lord Keynes: "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" good hunting all, E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD - 2kg Uruacu Whole Specimen PRICE REDUCED TO $750
I have a 2077 gram Uruacu whole specimen available for sale. I'm asking $750 plus shipping which is 36 cents per gram. Of the 3 remaining pieces that I have this one is the largest, the other two weigh 259 grams and 373 grams. There is a huge fracture in one side but I could not break this piece in two This is an awesome specimen that shows both smooth weathered surfaces and jagged surfaces. There is no oil on it. If you're interested in this piece or either of the smaller pieces contact me off list at bobadebt at ec.rr.com You can view images of it by clicking these links http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/BobaDebt/Uruacu/2077gr1.jpg http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/BobaDebt/Uruacu/2077gr2.jpg http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/BobaDebt/Uruacu/2077gr3.jpg http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/BobaDebt/Uruacu/2077gr4.jpg Thanks __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Rajasthan Meteorite has impact on Dr. Goyal and Nuclear Safety
Dear List, This link is in regards to the statement made by an Indian scientist, Dr. Goyal, in which he claimed that if the meteorite hit the reactor it would cause severe damage to a nuclear reactor and disaster. The Indian government is still investigating. Dirk Ross...Tokyo http://www.zeenews.com/readcomments.asp?rep=2&redirectpage=a&aid=412298&sid=NAT Original article: Meteorite fall in Rajasthan village Special Correspondent 10th incident in the State since 1995 The meteorite which fell at Kanvarpura village near Rawatbhata in Rajasthan recently. JAIPUR: A meteorite fell at Kanvarpura village near Rawatbhata, where the Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant is situated, on August 29. It weighs 6.8 kg and is of a rare type as it consists of 90 per cent iron. "Unspectacular event" At a press conference here on Monday, the Geological Survey of India (GSI) said the Kanvarpura incident was an "unspectacular event" compared to the meteorite shower in Gujarat recently. GSI Deputy Director-General (western region) R.S. Goyal said no fireworks were seen as the meteorite fell around 1:37 p.m. "The bright sunlight masked any glow in the sky, and the event would have probably gone unreported but for two shepherds who reported the matter at a police station." Frightens shepherds Dr. Goyal said the shepherds got frightened after the meteorite fell with a loud sound. They beat the meteorite with lathis and dragged it some distance, before immersing it in water. GSI scientists, who rushed to the village, recovered the meteorite with the help of the local administration. He said the meteorite could have caused devastation on an "unimaginable scale" if it had fallen on the Rawatbhata Atomic Power Plant. At least 10 cosmic bodies have fallen in the State, especially in its western parts, since 1995. The previous incident was reported at Bhuka village in Barmer district in June 2005. http://www.zeenews.com/readcomments.asp?rep=2&redirectpage=a&aid=412298&sid=NAT __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ...
Hello Greg, Berndt, Michael, I'm afraid my photographic skills and equipment are too lacking to do the material justice but here are low resolution scans of my slice: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/CaneySprings/NWA4883AEUCspideryclasts16-3gmGr-1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/CaneySprings/NWA4883AEUCspideryclasts16-3gmGregH.jpg best wishes, Jim > Hi Bernd, Jim, Michael and all who love exotic meteorites, > > Thank you Bernd for your great observations of NWA 4883, a fantastically > gorgeous maskelynite-rich eucrite. The "pools" of maskelynite are > awesome to look at through a microscope along with the rest of this > beauty. > > Michael asked where one could see photos, click at this link and you > will see the only remaining 20 pieces left with links to slices and > micro close-ups: > http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=%22nwa+4883%22&category0 > Thank you all who have purchased this truly fun meteorite from me. > > Happy Holidays! > Greg > > ===Greg Hupe > The Hupe Collection > NaturesVault (eBay) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.LunarRock.com > IMCA 3163 > ===Click here for my current eBay auctions: > http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault > > > >> - Original Message - >> From: "Michael Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]Greg Hupé's gorgeous NWA 4883 eucrite ... >> >> >>> Any chance you might share a pic or two? Sounds interesting. >>> >>> Michael Murray >>> micro hunter of SW Colorado >>> __ >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>> >> > > > __ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Another meteorite claim
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:37:11 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >so sad to see delusional people who think that their >common worthless rock is worth millions. Or even those who think that their rare, valuable meteorite is worth millions. You know, the ones who think a (for example) $10 a gram meteorite should fetch them $1,000 a gram. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew...lies, etc
E.P. To be perfectly frank, I've had enough of you, but I do like getting the last word in, so here you go. > "If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the > "laws of physics, scientific method, not to mention > " basic logic, we might get somewhere. > > Thanks for the compliment, Jason. I don't think "we" > are going to be able to get anywhere. You did lie. Here's your quote for the rest of the people who may or may not be following along: 1) E.P. Stated that: "It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals in a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the iridium is, after all." 2) I stated that: We don't know much about cometary composition, but there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they formed around iron cores, 3) In response, E.P. stated that: "I never said that." -- You don't even try to defend what you said but instead try to turn it on me for having said that you lied, when you clearly did. At least everyone else can see what a fool you're making of yourself... > "Show me proof. Show me blackened bones. > "Oh, that's right - there isn't any. > ""As I said before, I won't say that such events > "haven't happened,because in all likelihood, they have > "- but we *have no proof.* > "This is not denial. This is fact. > > What "we" pretty well know is that Jason's assertion > is not a fact, and that he is exhibiting denial. You have a layer of cosmic dust and a decline in animal populations. I don't doubt in any way that the answer is of cosmic origin, but what I'm saying is that you can't say with *any* degree of certainty what sort of cosmic event caused the layer of dust and supposed climate change because you have no solid evidence (such as the Yucatan crater) to prove your point. You maintain that, and I quote, "4) As far as locating the 31,000 BCE crater goes, its possible that the situation might be similar to the K-T crater - that one took 10 years to find. Same goes for impact point(s) for the 10,900 BCE event. If you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll see that more have been found in the areas where geologists live." - Which means that you expect a large, thirty-thousand year old crater to exist somewhere on the continent. Until you find definitive evidence such as this, all of your theories remain nothing more than unsubstantiated hypothesis. What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact process, and you seem to want to attribute that to an airburst. In science, we just don't do that. > "Rationalize them away? I'm not trying to say > anything "other than the fact that you're attributing > a mass "hominid death to an airburst/impact scenario > (you seem "to have changed your mind in this regard), > > For the 10,900 BCE event Sterling brought up airburst, > but only as an example of how little evidence can > remain from a pretty big impact. I've pretty well > always spoken about multiple cometary impactors, and a > change in the north Pacific Current. Climate change could change any ocean current given only a few hundred years, especially if large amounts of cold fresh-water are entering the ocean in the form of glacial melt. This, in turn, could drive greater climate changes, as weather patters are disrupted, etc. Find me a crater and I'll believe you. Until then, bluster away. > >"I'm saying we don't know how they died. > > But we do, as absolute physical evidence has been > demonstrated. Jason's reactions here are similar to > those some have had to the dinosuars' extinction, > where even though you have a big hole in the Earth, > its always something else that killed them. It's > probably going to take decades, as Sterling pointed > out, and will only be accepted by some long after "we" > are dead. At every point I acknowledge that a cosmic event was undoubtedly at least partly to blame for these climate changes - if not directly, than at least in initiating the steps necessary for a sort of domino effect in which ocean currents change, etc - see above. The only person in denial here is you, who refuses to accept the fact that he can't possibly know with any certainty what sort of cosmic cataclysms caused either dust layer. I speak generally about both because there is no proven source for either one and thus one need not distinguish between the two, at this point each is as obscured by time and lack of true study as the other. Notice how no one else is agreeing with you. There's a reason. > >That's not denial. > > ahem. Well, yours is, I'll grant you that. > >I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst, > > Then why doesn't Jason shut the hell up, and leave the > discussion to those who at least have an approximate > knowledge of the dynamics of airburst? The answer, > again, is denial. You very apparently know less than I do. I can calculate KE, and am taking calculus, as well as Physics B. I also have read most books available on impact mechanics, though none of them refer in any way to large bodies (ov
Re: [meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew...lies, etc
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:31:56 -0800, you wrote: >The only person in denial here is you, who refuses to accept the fact >that he can't possibly know with any certainty what sort of cosmic >cataclysms caused either dust layer. Sure he can. 200 years ago, between sips of firewater, some indian told some trader something that he roughly translated as "great snake eat firebird's moccasans, rain death on Great Ancestors who were by the way created by the Gods in North America so don't give me any of that evolution crap and sent to happy hunting grounds". This, of course, is obviously is an accurate history of a cometary impact 10,000 years ago, passed down through countless genertions of oral tradition waiting for the day that EPG can evangelize the rest of the world on the the Great Truths of the "First People". And if you don't agree with what he says, you don't understand him and are stupid, you European, forked-tounge-speaking invader. (note that the above isn't intended to be bigotry against Native Americans-- it is intended to be bigotry against EPG's evangelization). __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew...lies, etc
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:31:56 -0800, you wrote: >You've put forth some >ridiculous claims, such as the supposition that the droplets of the >meteor crater impactor were still liquid upon coming back into contact >with the ground And don't forget (only seen because someone quoted him-- originals go byebye) the gem that the Canyon Diablo impact "might have generated neutrons", synthesizing C14 and skewing C14 data. Hy-larious. __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Asteroid may be set to slam Mars in Jan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22350742/ Watch the skies! We may be getting (okay a LONG time down the road) more Martian meteorites...:) Tracy Latimer _ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/ __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Fake Moldavites
Mike, Bernd, Andi, Michael, all, Could be interesting to perform some accurate chemical analysis on some selected fakes. Probably the relative amounts of main oxides (SiO2 from 79 to 83%, Al2O3 from 8 to 11%, K2O from 2.4 to 3.4%, CaO from 1.4 to 2.7%, or MgO from 1.3 to 1.9%, as taken from data given by Heinen, after Bouska (1994) for 3 main moldavite deposits - see his book "Tektites, witnesses of cosmic catastrophes, p 89) would be similar. But how about minor oxides (TiO2, MnO or Na2O) ? Not to speak about the REE (rare earth elements) that are present in the ppm (part per million) range in natural moldavites. Could the "fakers" have thought to add in right proportions all these REE in right proportion ? Sure, such an analysis is not easy to perform and is certainly expensive and basically nobody among the buyers would have even thought to do it on their purchased pieces. But I would just be curious about the bulk composition of the fakes. Indeed it can be possible that some very different chemical composition would also yield such a "nice"" green shade, while this green color is probably attanied to in real moldavites because of the presence of some minor impurities. Did someone try to analyze the fakes ? This being, I agree with Michael, this is a real tragedy for collectors as there is probably nothing more to do than to carefully look for external characteristics (bubbles, "schlieren"...) on a suspected moldavite and further check the purchase date and the dealer's name for our older collection pieces. Good luck and thanks Mike and Michael for their warnings. AnywayMerry Christmas to everybody and many happy huntings for the New Year to come! Zelimir A 14:16 20/12/2007 -0800, Michael Farmer a écrit : Yes, these fake Chinese pieces are perfect, with great color and no flaws. That lack of flaws should be the first indication of authenticity. They are melting glass and pouring molds. Michael Farmer --- Andreas Gren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to forget, the small bubbles in the real > Moldavites and the "Schlieren" > in the real Moldavites, like the Schlierenbands in > some Ataxites > > Bubbles: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung3.htm > > Schlieren: http://moldavit.de/foto/fsammlung2.htm > > Best regards > Andi > > > Mike wrote: > > They were mostly set in wire as pendants, and when > put side by side, you > could clearly > see them as identical, made in a mold. I have found > one of the same on ebay, > at a very > high price. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Czech-Moldavite-200-5-Carat-Green-Meteorite-Tektite_ > W0QQitemZ200179801535QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie > wItem > > You can clearly recognize this one is an artifact (a > fake) because the > greenish > color is way too "monotonous" and the grooves too > "regular" !!! > > Bernd > Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC, 3, Rue A. Werner, F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94 Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
