[meteorite-list] Test
Test, please ignore.. Bjørn __ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] [OT] Huricane
Hello Lars, As I have also great interest in weather watching, I kept following this storm/hurricane all day yesterday. I discovered it coming on Thursday on the Internet weather models, and posted a warning message on a norwegian scientific usenet group. I got a lot of bullshit back, as thanks! Incredibly enough there are no weather groups on the norwegian and danish usenet!! This is a scandal! The center of the storm passed right over the southern part of Norway. But it turned out the worst winds were at the western and southern part of the center, epecially since the wind from the Nort Sea unimpeded could hit the coast and flat landscape of Denmark and west coast of Sweden. The mountainous landscape of Norway protected it. So not too much damage in Norway, 20,000 households without power, some trees down, some serious flooding. I see that 11 people in Denmark/Sweden has been killed + 3 in the UK. Really long time I have heard of such death tolls. Maybe the people don't believe storms/hurricanes can be really dangerous anymore. And they have to much they MUST do a given day, so they keep going outside at any rate. Hope you recover soon, Bjørn Sørheim, in Norway = Original Message From Lars Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Hello list Just got the power back This is the worst I have been thrue so far. A huricaen just pased over Denmark. Roofs ar flying around, trees are faling (big ones- 300 year old oaks !!!)everywhere. I am ok, but so far 4 have been reported killed by the police Hurricane s are very very rare up here, so we are deeply chaken But stil alive Lars __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Burst of Meteors Seen Near Finland / Correctionto directions...
Hello Marc, I don't think that your anticipation is correct. In fact Phil Bagnall from England, formerly, maybe still? on the list has a special page on his website about spiraling meteors. Personally during the surprise -pre 17 hours - of the Leonids in 1998, I saw one strong meteor, maybe -8 mag., that was split in two AND both of them giving of strong light and both most clearly corckscrewing just as the smoke was leaving the head and backwards! That was when my interest in spiraling meteors was born, by the way... :-) I posted this to this list and the meteor list, but nobody seems to have made a similar observation. Very few people saw that outburst I believe. But as Phil Bagnall writes on his page, observations of spiraling meteors pops up now and then. Of course such motion is hard to see in the more common, less bright meteors. Maybe the fast Leonids (71 km/s) are more prone to spiral, though I have seen a lot of Leonids, but just one (two :) ) that was indeed spiraling. Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Howdy Bjorn We do get to catch meteors in the act on a regular basis at night, and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen a nighttime meteor trace a corkscrewing path across the sky. Is this correct? Comments? Cheers, MDF By the way, a more updated thery of corckscrewing follows here: The supersonic speed of the meteor - several km/s upto ~72 km/s - will create a cavity - a near vacuum - in the wake of its flightpath, inside its shockfront. Very shortly (~momentarily), the air will rush in to fill the cavity from all sides, like what is happening in a tornado e.g., or in a kitchen sink as the water flows out. This will create a spiraling motion of the fluid, water or air in these example cases. (Is the turning direction determined by the particular location in one the two hemispheres of the Earth in the meteor case, by the way??) The smoke coming out of the melting meteor is subsequently seized by the spiraling motion of the inward rushing air, thus voila - a corckscrewing meteor is created. Is this accepted or not by current knowledge? Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From Pekka Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Please, ignore my former e-mail, made some mistakes with directions...:-( These should be more correct. Hello, Bjorn and the list, the direction was (or at the moment we suppose, it was) about from west / north-west to east / east-south, against Vaasa, Finland. The angle seems to was quite low, about 30 degrees, and the crossing- point with the ground is somewhere between Vaasa and Valassaaret on the finnish coast. So it may be possible, something has reached the shore of Finland between Vaasa and Valassaaret. We don´t have a map yet, but you can at least locate Vaasa from; http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/lgcolor/ficolor.htm best, pekka s Bjørn Sørheim wrote: Hello, Actually my impression is that the corkscrewing is caused by the *very* high speed of a meteor, not the rotation of the meteorite, if there is rotation at all. Think about the corckscrewing you see at the wingtips of a jetplane - airliner. The higher the speed the more corckscrewing effects. Anyway, which direction did this object travel? If it was seen from both Sweden and Finland it might have reached the shore in either countries.. Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Howdy, list Impressive picture! The trail is twisted in a repeating fashion that can't just be due to winds - I'd say the meteor corkscrewed its way through the atmosphere. I'm curious - the maximum survivable entry velocity for meteorites was calculated a while back (forgive the lack of reference here). Would a twisting, spiraling entry have an impact on the survivability of meteorites? I'm inclined to believe that if the total air resistance vector was divided into an opposing vector and a sideways vector... would that mean the meteorite could be smaller and survive, or would it have to be larger?? On one hand, the vector magnitude parallel/opposite to the flight path would be smaller, but on the other hand you'd have a sideways vector that would put a shear force on the meteorite. The shear strength of materials tends to be a fraction of that of the bulk material strength, so would the meteorite be MORE likely to break up in a corkscrewing flight path? Thoughts? Comments? Does anyone know if anyone has calculated this sort of thing before? Cheers, MDF You can find the pic from; http://www.vasabladet.fi/nyheter.asp?katID=1 text only in swedish...;- best, pekka s -- Marc D. Fries, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Associate Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, DC 20015 PH: 202 478 7970 FAX: 202 478 8901 __ Meteorite
RE: [meteorite-list] Burst of Meteors Seen Near Finland
Hello, Actually my impression is that the corkscrewing is caused by the *very* high speed of a meteor, not the rotation of the meteorite, if there is rotation at all. Think about the corckscrewing you see at the wingtips of a jetplane - airliner. The higher the speed the more corckscrewing effects. Anyway, which direction did this object travel? If it was seen from both Sweden and Finland it might have reached the shore in either countries.. Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Howdy, list Impressive picture! The trail is twisted in a repeating fashion that can't just be due to winds - I'd say the meteor corkscrewed its way through the atmosphere. I'm curious - the maximum survivable entry velocity for meteorites was calculated a while back (forgive the lack of reference here). Would a twisting, spiraling entry have an impact on the survivability of meteorites? I'm inclined to believe that if the total air resistance vector was divided into an opposing vector and a sideways vector... would that mean the meteorite could be smaller and survive, or would it have to be larger?? On one hand, the vector magnitude parallel/opposite to the flight path would be smaller, but on the other hand you'd have a sideways vector that would put a shear force on the meteorite. The shear strength of materials tends to be a fraction of that of the bulk material strength, so would the meteorite be MORE likely to break up in a corkscrewing flight path? Thoughts? Comments? Does anyone know if anyone has calculated this sort of thing before? Cheers, MDF You can find the pic from; http://www.vasabladet.fi/nyheter.asp?katID=1 text only in swedish...;- best, pekka s -- Marc D. Fries, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Associate Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, DC 20015 PH: 202 478 7970 FAX: 202 478 8901 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Burst of Meteors Seen Near Finland / Correction to directions...
Hello Pekka, Thanks for the info. I found a nice link to Valassaaret here: http://www8.calle.com/info.cgi?lat=63.4333long=21.0667name=Valassaaretcty=Finlandalt=3 (Paste the two parts into one with no space between) Umeå in Sweden is the big yellow spot on the left side, while Vaasa is the biggest yellow spot on the right shore, by the small bay. By the way, a more updated thery of corckscrewing follows here: The supersonic speed of the meteor - several km/s upto ~72 km/s - will create a cavity - a near vacuum - in the wake of its flightpath, inside its shockfront. Very shortly (~momentarily), the air will rush in to fill the cavity from all sides, like what is happening in a tornado e.g., or in a kitchen sink as the water flows out. This will create a spiraling motion of the fluid, water or air in these example cases. (Is the turning direction determined by the particular location in one the two hemispheres of the Earth in the meteor case, by the way??) The smoke coming out of the melting meteor is subsequently seized by the spiraling motion of the inward rushing air, thus voila - a corckscrewing meteor is created. Is this accepted or not by current knowledge? Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From Pekka Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Please, ignore my former e-mail, made some mistakes with directions...:-( These should be more correct. Hello, Bjorn and the list, the direction was (or at the moment we suppose, it was) about from west / north-west to east / east-south, against Vaasa, Finland. The angle seems to was quite low, about 30 degrees, and the crossing- point with the ground is somewhere between Vaasa and Valassaaret on the finnish coast. So it may be possible, something has reached the shore of Finland between Vaasa and Valassaaret. We don´t have a map yet, but you can at least locate Vaasa from; http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/lgcolor/ficolor.htm best, pekka s Bjørn Sørheim wrote: Hello, Actually my impression is that the corkscrewing is caused by the *very* high speed of a meteor, not the rotation of the meteorite, if there is rotation at all. Think about the corckscrewing you see at the wingtips of a jetplane - airliner. The higher the speed the more corckscrewing effects. Anyway, which direction did this object travel? If it was seen from both Sweden and Finland it might have reached the shore in either countries.. Bjørn Sørheim = Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Howdy, list Impressive picture! The trail is twisted in a repeating fashion that can't just be due to winds - I'd say the meteor corkscrewed its way through the atmosphere. I'm curious - the maximum survivable entry velocity for meteorites was calculated a while back (forgive the lack of reference here). Would a twisting, spiraling entry have an impact on the survivability of meteorites? I'm inclined to believe that if the total air resistance vector was divided into an opposing vector and a sideways vector... would that mean the meteorite could be smaller and survive, or would it have to be larger?? On one hand, the vector magnitude parallel/opposite to the flight path would be smaller, but on the other hand you'd have a sideways vector that would put a shear force on the meteorite. The shear strength of materials tends to be a fraction of that of the bulk material strength, so would the meteorite be MORE likely to break up in a corkscrewing flight path? Thoughts? Comments? Does anyone know if anyone has calculated this sort of thing before? Cheers, MDF You can find the pic from; http://www.vasabladet.fi/nyheter.asp?katID=1 text only in swedish...;- best, pekka s -- Marc D. Fries, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Associate Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, DC 20015 PH: 202 478 7970 FAX: 202 478 8901 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin Group Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Finmet
Hello, Don't use the ivanmete.. etc. adress, use the goldrocks... (was it?) adress instead!! Ivanmete.. doesn't seems to work. Made a lot of trouble for me too.. They ought to remove the automatic message with the ivanmete.. adress. Bjørn Sørheim At 21:19 22.06.04 -0700, you wrote: Hello all- Anyone have info on how to reach Ivan? All my emails to his address and ask seller a question get bounced back. His PayPal address has not answered. Sorry for the use of the list but I am out of ideas, Rob Wesel -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Dunite
Hello List, Since on the topic of dunite or olivine. Just a km from where I live there are at least two locations of large dunite outcrops. Less than 100 km to the south of me there are three valleys almost composed of just dunites. One is made into a large scale open pit mine. Farms has been swallowed by this open pit mine. In the other valley a large underground mine is being started up as I write this. How usual are such large outcrops of dunite/olivine around the world, like in the US - rockies? Micro-diamonds has been found in the area here, and toghether with dunite they both tell the story of bedrock that was once far deeper into the crust, maybe ~50 km deep. Which nowadays is at the surface, thanks to tectonic movements. If anyone is looking for pure dunite, it's not hard for me to find nice specimens around here. Bjørn Sørheim, in Norway of deep At 14:16 05.05.04 -0600, you wrote: Good afternoon List; Dunite is one of the mineral groups that are mantle derived here on Earth, and diamonds are associated with, didn't we discuss diamonds last week in a different context. Very small world. Could there be a chance of diamonds in a dunite asteroid out there floating around in space? Space prospector, Dave Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a side note, how many meteorites incorporate dunite as part of their makeup? The only place I remember hearing about dunite previously was in Chassigny, since Chassigny is a Martian example of what would be called a dunite on Earth. Well, dunite, a coarse-grained igneous rock composed almost entirely of olivine, has been reported from: Chassigny (SNC) Dhofar 307 (LUN-A) Dhofar 730 (LUN-A) Mount Padbury (MES) Mincy (MES) [Putorana contains feldspathic dunite] Bernd To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Norwegian Meteorites
Hello, Yes, I should know them pretty well by know... But, my first reaction is: Have a find or fall occured in Norway that I don't know of - or are you going on a search trip to Norway? Bjørn Sørheim, in Norway At 21:05 16.03.04 -0700, you wrote: Does anyone know what the rules governing the exportation of meteorites from Norway? Thanks, Fred Olsen, Denver __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] 'Blueberries' Are The Answer To Key Mars Puzzle
H, why didn't anyone think of that in the first place! :-) So Opportunity will be driving around on small globules the rest of the trip on Mars... Talking about slip slidin away... Bjørn Sørheim At 08:27 17.03.04 -0800, you wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns4790 'Blueberries' are answer to key Mars puzzle David Chandler New Scientist March 17, 2004 The Mars rover Opportunity has now solved the key puzzle it was sent to the Meridiani Planum to figure out: where is the hematite that was spotted in the area by the Mars Global Surveyor orbiter? The answer is in the blueberries, the tiny mineral spheres that litter the rover's landing site. The question was a key one, because hematite almost always forms in water, and water is thought to be a pre-requisite for life. Scientists led by Arizona State University's Phil Christensen revealed their discovery at the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday. Finding the hematite in the spheres makes sense, because earlier data from the rover showed the spheres are almost certainly concretions formed when water deposited layer after layer of minerals around a minute grain of sand. Ever since it landed in January, Opportunity has been seeing more and more of the spheres, covering the soil, embedded in the bedrock, and seemingly strewn across the flat plateau surrounding the landing crater. However, until now, nobody knew what they were made of. This was because at a few millimetres across they are far too small to fill the field of view of any of the rover's three spectrometers. Berry bowl The challenge was to find a place where the spheres were sufficiently concentrated to provide a target for the spectrometers. A berry bowl provided the solution, a shallow depression in the bedrock where dozens of spheres had collected in a tight bunch. All three rover instruments, the mini-TES, Mossbauer, and Alpha Proton X-ray Spectrometers, as well as its microscope, were used on Saturday and Sunday to gather data and provided the definitive evidence. The surrounding bedrock showed no sign of hematite at all, while the concentrated berries showed a very strong signal. It is now clear that, while not pure hematite, the spheres contain the primary concentrations of the mineral. They can account for the hematite seen on the soil surface, because they are strewn across it, and for its absence in the bounce marks made by the rover's landing, because pictures show that all the spheres were driven into the soil and out of sight by the force of impact. Lost lakes? There is one remaining question about the hematite, however. It appears to be even more concentrated on the plains outside the crater. Does that mean that there may be an additional source as well, perhaps an overlying layer of rock, or just that the plain is strewn with many millions of spheres? Opportunity is expected to drive out onto that plain in a week or two, and should have a chance to answer that question as well. Christensen, who designed the mini-TES, is hopeful that additional hematite-rich formations may be found that might prove the presence not just of water, but of large bodies of standing water that may have persisted for long periods. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] What are those blueberries on Mars?
Hello List, I guess you all have seen those pictures coming from Mars at the the Meridiani Planum/Opportunity site. Embedded in, and eroding out of the bedrock in the sidewall of the 20 m crater where Opportunity is located, are those 5mm perfect spherical stones. They have a different colour than the finely layered matrix they sits in. The geologist Steven Squyers said that there were 3 theories about them among the scientists at JPL - the 3rd one, by now almost discarded: 1) They are concretions in the layered deposits, that formed slowly after the deposists had been made, probably by water circulating through them and slowly crystalizing. 2) They are balls made from molten material flung up in the atmosphere either by volcanic eruptions or large crater forming impacts. 3) They are volcanic 'lapilli' formed as growing spherical balls from ash coming out of an erupting volcano. Since these small balls (blueish) as photographed by Opportunity, has a different color than the deposits they are located in, this seems less likely. So what are your theories, any thoughts? Another theory: Could they be rock fragments rounded by the movements by the wind in fine deposits through millions of years at the surface? Link to picture: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05235.jpg http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars (More pictures) Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] What are those blueberries on Mars?
Mark, It certainly is the science team at JPL's idea that the 'round guys' are embedded in the outcrop. For instance Dr. Squyres were talking about wheter they could see the layers curving above or below the balls, or wheter it is possible to see if the balls have made a small dent in the layering when they, possibly, fell down from above. Also the closeup pictures suggest the balls are firmly embedded in there. The big question is how did they all get so perfectly round, and what kind of geologic process would produce such a weird 'bedrock'. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 15:40 13.02.04 -0500, you wrote: Hello List, I guess you all have seen those pictures coming from Mars at the the Meridiani Planum/Opportunity site. Embedded in, and eroding out of the bedrock in the sidewall of the 20 m crater where Opportunity is located, are those 5mm perfect spherical stones. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim Curious stuff, and this was my initial reaction, too. But, on closer examination, I remain unconvinced these spherules are actually weathering out of the exposed bedrock. It looks to me as though they're everywhere, including on and in the soil above the outcrop. Assuming these things gradually migrate downslope, I don't suppose it is impossible for some of them to lodge in the cracks and bedding planes of the exposed rock. Stay tuned ... Mark __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] A rocky meteorite probably fell down in the North Sea.
I have some information to add about this 17th January 9:00 a.m. case which I recently posted. There are now at least 2 articles online about this story: http://aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/article.jhtml?articleID=186681 http://aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/article.jhtml?articleID=186854 They are in norwegian only, but please look at the picture. The resolution is bad, but the colors are correct. What do you folks get out of it? Very strange colors for an airliner contrail, I would think!? Also some detailed information from a distant observer have now come forward. Relative to the location of the video-photographer, (from which the photo in the above two articles have been grabbed) he is placed ~60 deg. apart. The distance between them is about 175 km. His location is the town of Lillesand east of Kristiansand on the coast. He called a radio station saying an aeroplane had exploded in mid-air. The 1st observer in Sandnes gives a rough azimuth direction of SE (=135 deg.). The 2nd observer in Lillesand gives a direction of S-SW (=202.5 deg.). It is possible to refine this values, but the general area now seems to be fixed. The meeting of the two sighting lines is a point 40-50 km S-SSE of the regional main capital of Kristiansand, but alas over the ocean (Skagerak)! This might explain why no booms have been reported so far - as I know of. A very interesting piece of information is that the observer in Lillesand says the dark end part of the cloud is pointing more or less straight downwards. This effectively excludes an aeroplane in this case. He also observed it very high in the sky. His explaination of the cloud is very similar to the photos. Unfortunately the case has possibly been destroyed in Norway, because the newspaper called two astronomers which has no experiences with meteor science. One is a well know solar researcher, the other's speciality is nuclear reactions in stars. They automatically exclaimed: Ah, contrail! Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Weird cloud seen in Sandnes, Norway on the 17th - 9 a.m.
Hello List, WHAT is this?? Newspaper article at: http://aftenbladet.no/nyheter/lokalt/article.jhtml?articleID=186681 If of interest I can translate the article. The normal speculation of contrail, plane letting out fuel, tornado, UFO, skydiver!, space debris, etc, etc. Seen towards the southeast. Videotaped at about 9:00 a.m on Saturday the 17th of January. This is located a few kilometers east of Stavanger, Norway. Shown on the second largest TV-station in Norway, TV2 this evening. Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Bizarre Stone Found in the Sahara
From Moon, Mars or Earth then... Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 08:08 26.12.03 -0800, you wrote: Dear Charles and List Members, Sorry about turning this stone into a mystery but none of our team members or the field scientist can identify what class of meteorite this odd stone will fall into, if any. Dr. Irving is coming by today to certify the weight of this meteorite and to remove a type specimen for study. We will be able to give more details and pictures after the meteorite is cut and team members are offered a first glance at the images. All of our observations so far have been made by examining a broken surface under a microscope. A few interesting observations are that: It is oriented It has flow lines on the exterior It has an extremely thin black fusion crust It is a fragmental breccia It is vesiculated It has no metal It is an achondrite It contains small gem quality crystals of various habits and color throughout the matrix and several other odd features Like we said, we have no idea what class this will fall into. All the best, Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection IMCA 2185 Hi Adam and team, Congrats on your successful trip. We can not even try to describe one of the meteorites because it is so bizarre, smells like another contest! Hoping you publish a picture of this soon so everyone can take a stab at it. It should be fun, and great new content for the list. Regards, CharlyV __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Park Forest and other falls on Sky Telescope this year?
Hello List, I'm not a subscriber to Sky Telescope currently. Now I want to buy a few copies from 2003. Since I'm on this list, one of the prime interests is of course meteor and meteorites. So those of you that subscribe to ST, can you tell me which issues /month this year covered the Park Forest fall? Possibly other falls - Thuathe? New Orleans, India - maybe not in press yet. Did the Wales controversy ever make it to the magazine? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Here's a true Concorde contrail
Hello List,
Here's a link to a great picture of a Concorde contrail
complete with the Concorde itself:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=425035
This is photographed from another plane below up to the Concorde
at 55000 feet (16.8 km).
As we cruise the North Atlantic at 38000 feet, she is heading
back home way above us, leaving a huge contrail.
Looks more like the ordinary contrail of other airliners.
What will it look like after, say 1-2 minutes?
Note the jagged ('puff-puff') outline.
If you save those images to your disk, change the extension to .jpg.
Regards,
Bjørn Sørheim
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Here's a true Concorde contrail
Robert V., Actually the contrails changes very little over the first few minutes. Most probably that's when the both images in Wales were taken. I don't seem to find any good images following those links either. The pages seem to rot away... Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 08:33 09.10.03 -0700, you wrote: Bjørn Sørheim wrote: What will it look like after, say 1-2 minutes? Good question, Bjørn. Prompted me to check the Internet for other images of not so fresh contrails. Here are the first few results: Searched the web for contrails concorde jet airliner. Results 1 - 10 of about 93. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Wales: A few comments
was pointing towards a meteor explanation. Now I read in my encyclopaedia that Concorde operates in a flight level of 15-18 km, well I'm not shure anymore... But 'the boring aeroplane' seems out, yes. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] The cork screwing tail
Hello GeoZay, But it is for shure twisting! Stand above your computer screen, look down parallell with the screen surface in the direction of the tail. Place a ruler from the front of the (meteor) head, to the back of the last point on the tail. See those sine form bulges on both sides of the ruler? Perfect sine form - a corckscrewing tail. We see it directly from below, if we saw it from behind or front those bulges would have been multiplied and much tighter toghether. Also a fast moving or slowly rotating one produces fewer turns, I would assume. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 15:44 07.10.03 EDT, you wrote: A spectacular meteor streaked across the skies of southwest Western Australia, creating a sonic boom as it broke the sound barrier and startling many rural residents. If it was a meteor over Wales, I wonder how come this didn't happen? If it was a meteor, it apparently was large enough to produce one hell of a sonic bang. This is one of the reasons why I don't think the photograph was of a meteor. Another was the lack of a quick twisting train. George Zay __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Hotshot's meteor in photo is genuine 4/10 - Western Mail
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=13480248 method=fullsiteid=50082 Hotshot's meteor in photo is genuine Oct 4 2003 Carl Yapp, The Western Mail RED-FACED astronomers last night conceded that a schoolboy's spectacular photograph of a meteor burning up in the sky was not a bogus shot. And space experts are so excited about what they're now describing as a magnificent picture that they want to hold a conference to debate the threat posed by meteors to Earth. They want shooting star Jonathan Burnett, 15, to be the guest of honour at the event, which is likely to be held at the Space Guard Centre in Knighton, Powys. The centre's once-doubtful Jay Tate said another photo of the same meteor had been published corroborating Jonathan's amazing picture. Hotshot Jonathan, from Pencoed, near Bridgend, has been inundated with messages from space fans across the globe. But there have been a few odd messages. Two claimed the meteor was really Dr Who's Tardis; another said it was an image of Wales' red dragon. We were never in any doubt that Jonathan's picture was genuine, said his father Paul Burnett. We were all quite upset and angry that people started to cry down the picture and accuse Jonathan of faking it. However, I'm glad they've changed their opinion and we'd be interested in taking part in a conference, as long as it didn't interfere with his school work. We must have had more than 50 e-mails at the last count and the only countries that haven't been in touch are Russia and Japan. Ninety-nine per cent of the e-mails have been sensible but the odd ones have been quite funny. The Space Guard Centre analyses the threat meteors pose to Earth. Mr Tate said, The scepticism is beginning to lift. Another photo taken in another area of what looks to be the same meteor has come forward. I must admit, we were dubious about the picture but it now appears to be a magnificent shot. We'd like to invite Jonathan to the centre to discuss it. Amateur astronomer and Montgomeryshire MP Lembit Opik, who has warned against the threat of near earth objects, congratulated Jonathan. He said, The explosion looks to have been backed up. It confirms what I've been saying for a long time and Jonathan's got the proof. The remarkable picture, taken while Jonathan snapped skateboarding friends with his new digital camera, has made him a star at Nasa. The US space agency made his photo Astronomy Picture of the Day - beating off pictures from professional competitors from around the world. Experts said it was one of the best shots of a meteor they'd ever seen. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] You are wrong Robert, that's a METEOR!
Hello Robert List, I really don't know how you arrived at your numbers. And I'm really not (that) interested. BECAUSE, if you have garbage in - garbage out, as we all know. You don't know where the observers are, you don't know the field of the two different cameras, you don't know the azimuth of the two sighting lines, you don't know the altitude angle in the sky for the meteor head. You can't even be sure of the time. And you rotate the image to get the steepness of the tail you wish... You make a LOT of *assumptions* of this values, and you have your BLACK BOX method which you never really explained. Do you think anyone can trust the results you might get?? If you get a zillion mathematically correct decimal numbers out, as long as you put unverified numbers in, they are worth *nothing*. And I still don't know what's going on in your BLACK BOX!?? Until we get more verified numbers, I can't compute anything here. I don't see what's the point in going on with this debate, as long as we have no firm footing in reality. Get those numbers, if not I will terminate the discussion. BTW, give me your guessing, HOW FAR AWAY ARE THOSE CLOUDS, Robert?!! (Those right in front of the meteor head.) GIVE ME YOUR GUESS. That answers the riddle I posed yesterday. I know the answer, you see. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Images of Wales meteor (no boring aeroplane)
Rob, Marco List, I haven't had time to write anything today. But I'm managed to read trough 99% of the posting on this subject. Marco comments that the trail behind the head should be sunlit since it must be higher in the sky. Some points why it might still not appear sunlit: a) As the trail is further east, the sun sets earlier is this direction, so the sun may have set from this point, or be obscured by clouds on the horizon, which we onbserve there are, certainly. This even though its probably great height. b) If this is a rather big chunk of burning rock, it would produce a rather thick trail of smoke and debris. As we know, billowing clouds of 'see through' water vapour gets dark if they are thick enough. If this trail contains much dust, you won't see the light shining on top, just the dark underside. Remeber how much the water in the rainclouds darkens such clouds. c) As the the head is closer to the sun, and probably more thinned out, as the result of an explosion, the sun will shine through, and also more light will be reflected it from because of the sun close by. Look at clouds near the sun at sunset, they are almost as bright as the sun. That fooled you once today, Rob, didn't it :-) Also the head is extended, collecting more light than a narrow tail. I think all this explain why the tail is dark, the head bright. Look also at picture 1 by Jonathan, a great part of the tail is light near the head, while dark on the underside, but this light gradually disappear as you go backwards! Clearly a result of the angle under which the different parts of the tail is viewed. Also someone commented he thought the tail was behind the cirrus clouds, while the head was in front. In practice this would of course be VERY difficult to accomplish, indeed. While not easy to see in Jonathan's first image, it certainly is easy to see in his second. Clearly behind the clouds there. 1st image here:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html 2nd image here:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0310/fireball2_burnett_big.jpg I thank Sterling K Webb for his extremely interesting post today, which explain how daylight fireballs evade people's notice. Great posting! Recommended! Rob, how you suddenly today came down from a high trajectory to 10k, I don't really understand?? Just because Marco said the sun was 1 hour further on in azimuth? A dark, not bright tail?? How do you reason, here?? One IMPORTANT thing I found today is this: The cloud formation in the Pencoed 1ST image and the Porthcawl image have INDENTICAL form and placement. Means with 100% shurety they are taken within 1 or 2 minutes. Great help to us. The INCREDIBLE thing is, they have also the exact same relative placement **in relation** to the meteor cloud, I repeat the EXACT same placement! How is this possible, when the observers are placed so far away from each other!!?? Some solutions: 1) The two observers are on the exact same line of sight. Not really possible as the object have some height in the sky, and Jonathan is probably higher up in the terrain than Julian. The different steepness of the tail also counter this. 2) The two objects have more or less the exact same height. That is: in the same position in the sky, really the object at this moment crosses the cloud deck. Means again the head of the cloud is most probabably below 10 km. To COUNTER this again is the following: In Jonathan's 2nd picture from Pencoed the bright meteor head cloud have moved quite noticeable compared to the cirrus clouds in front of it in the intervening 4m 14s (southwards). Then again the meteor head cloud can't be in the same postion and height as the clouds!! 3)A better solution?? I have here a riddle, an enigma I haven't been able to solve. You will find what I have seen in those pictures. It's 1 hour past midnight here, I can't really think clear Do maybe anyone else have another solution to these observed facts?? I'll ponder it untill tomorrow.. At this point it would have been fine to have exact positions of both observers, toghether with az1,h1 and az2,h2... Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Images of Wales meteor (no boring aeroplane)
Hello Marco List, I wonder what you really are doing here, Marco? Is this what you would call science or 'seeking the truth'? Are you trying to find the best explanation, or is it something else? That sometimes there are some conditions by a minority of aeroplanes that come close to producing what was pictured does NOT mean that you or anyone else has proven that that cloud in the picture were made by an aeroplane that day. You must clearly also explain why it can't be a meteor. And you can't. Meteors do look exactly like that. That you or Mr. Bone have by some reason made up your mind that you don't think it is a meteor have no value for the rest of us, if you can't come up with really good reasons why it was not produced by a meteor with a terminal burst. Bone says: No reports! No meteor! I wonder why should people report it when there were good digital pictures of it all over the place? And when it has been photographed on the fastest and best media there is, it has been proven that it is for real. And then it also should have been reported according to Bones's theory. I wasn't. Bone MUST then come up with a new theory why there was no reports, and that's HIS problem. If some people photographed with their new fancy digital cameras, CROWDS did of course see it. But if they all think like you that all things movin' up in the sky are man made machines, then they would make fool of themselves to take the big trouble to report it. Bone and others seemed to have made some big mistakes: They thought the orange head of the cloud was the terminal burst as it happened, making the picture a true sensation. Added to that they made the mistake to think it was huge, since on the picture it was huge. Mistake no. 2. It was merely zoomed! No -20 fireball, sorry!! Just the average one. I never thought it was the burst as it happened, but for me it also looked big. Anyway, case fall apart. No sensation. We're outta - here let's go. We're making all fools of ourselves in front of the media. The world comes tumbling down - but not the way we had thought! THEN mistake no. 3 is comitted:'It's no meteor either, bloody exhaust spewing old aeroplane..' That IS the MOST serious mistake!! Look at: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/content_objectid=13474802_ method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Nasa-in-a-spin-over-meteor-shot-name_page .html Here you find: '...Jonathan, from Pencoed, near Bridgend, was taking action photographs of his skateboarding friends when **they spotted the orange ball of fire tearing across the evening sky**.' '...Shortly after being praised by Nasa, proud shooting star Jonathan said, I was skateboarding with my mates in the park when a little boy pointed into the sky and said, 'The sun's exploding'. I looked up and **saw a fireball dropping through the sky** but I had no idea what it was. I grabbed my camera and fired off a couple of pictures.' (**Stars courtesy by this author.) We have here one report of a moving meteor, the orange ball, fireball dropping.. Is Mr. Bone interested in getting more reports, at this point in time, I wonder? There is one very easy way to prove it's a meteor: Get the azimut and height (Az1,h1) of the first Jonathan picture from Pencoed. Get the azimut and height (Az2,h2) of the Heywood picture from Porthcawl. Not hard to do, but you must be on the spot. Might add that Pencoed and Pothcawl is ~15.5 km apart. Do the math, and find the distance and height where the sighting lines meet. If the height is clearly inconsistent with the height of an aeroplane, it is a meteor! Very easy if you have those four numbers. I haven't obviously, but I reckon Mr. Bone have them by now. What do they tell?? I also read the thread about this meteor on the uk.sci.weather ng., the majority were in favor of the meteor explanation, many of them having seen bright fireballs, even daylight. I bet they even have seen some clouds previously and a few aeroplanes contrails in their lifes. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 21:08 04.10.03 +0200, you wrote: Hi, I lived 20 years near to an airport too, jet contrails never end abrupt in the sky. Tom is right. I'm sorry, but yesterday Dutch amateur astronomer Klaas Jobse posted a picture on the Belgian Astronomy mailing list of an aircraft contrail doing just that: stop abruptly. In fact, in the second picture you can see that the trail has multiple interuptions. Long time meteor observer Norman McLeod (AMS) posted this on Meteorobs yesterday regarding these breaks: A couple of weeks ago Joan and I went to a grocery store shortly after sunset, when the sky was very clear. We had to watch airplane contrails for a short while because of their sunlit beauty, about six at a time. Planes were over the Gulf of Mexico coming and going from Florida east coast cities. One spot had some patches of dry air, for the planes crossing the dry air would have clean breaks in the contrails. We watched three planes produce the same contrail breaks
Re: [meteorite-list] Images of Wales meteor (no boring aeroplane)
Hello Pekka List, I truly doubt yor last statement, Pekka. And the kind of attitude you are showing now is neither scientific nor 'truth-seeking' it's more like submissiveness, I'm afraid. I have spent 10 years in an university environment. It's facts and arguments that builds knowledge and science, not backtapping. I'm also seeing Marco and Mr. Bone's conclusion as a kind of fatigue with the bolide chasing situation, in fact. It's I guess it's natural for them in their position to concentrate on the obvious falls and scrap the not so. But when this leads to seemingly gross errors, including accusing absolutely innocent people of fraud, I react strongly. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 00:57 05.10.03 +0300, you wrote: Bjørn Sørheim wrote: Hello Marco List, I wonder what you really are doing here, Marco? Is this what you would call science or 'seeking the truth'? Are you trying to find the best explanation, or is it something else? Well, as far as I know, Marco is one of the pioners with the bolides, and the dutch sky-cam network is one of the best in the world, so I highly apreciate his opinions in these cases. We had a bolide-case in Finland last February, and the knowledge and experience of Marco was a great help. In fact I supppose, Marco has seen more pics of bolidies than we all others on the list together. take care, pekka s __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Images of Wales meteor
Hello All, What worries me a bit that so many meteor-interested and competent people (even inside NASA) can't agree what a meteor do or should look like! There doesn't seem to be too many good meteor pictures around, that's a central problem. And seems like nobody have issued a scholarly work on meteor cloud recognition yet... As it says quite clearly - if you read what the websites write about what happened before the boy took the first picture - I hardly did believe for a second that the bright head of the meteor was a recording of an explosion or afterglow of such. It is for shure just the low sun shining on an extended meteor [burst] cloud. ..His boyfriend had to observe and tell the boy that there was this weird cloud in the sky .. then the boy had to grab the camera.. most probably zoom it .. then take the picture. Would take some time all this... As for your arguments Robert: 1. Sonic boom. There isn't always [heard]. There wasn't in New Orleans, and lot of other cases. Are you shure this was be a really big meteor? The boy's picture now obviously turns out to be zoomed to a great extent... 3. Observers. We are at the start of collecting evidence. Observers don't post here, right. Took some days to get picture II, more times to develop the paper, slide ones.. Magnitude -20!, where do you get that number from? BTW, most meteorite dropping fireballs cluster around -9 I read somewhere. Also this was a daylight occurence, remember. 'Fireball' is not the correct word to use probably, because it would be easier to spot the cloud afterwards, than with an average, or even less than average, fireball in a bright sky. 3. Contrail shape. Damit!, in the second picture from Jon Burnett, it is **clearly** starting to corkscrew. Also I guess if you watch those missile launches from Vandenberg base you are thinking of a MUCH longer timespan than the short time between picture 1 and 2 from the boy. Some things that do point to a meteor: - The trail is obviously turning more downwards in its track compared to the ordinary jet contrail you see in the sky. (I have definitely seen and videotaped my fair share of those, and know their looks :-) ) This is definitely pointing towards a meteor origin. - The trail is not split. I'm convinced this mean you can rule out an airliner. (But not a fighter plane, of course). - The *sleek* shape of the trail, in picture 1. It has not the kind of 'puff-puff' outline you would always see in a rocket launch, or within seconds from a retarding airliner contrail. I think this is an important observation! The question of afterburners. An afterburner is an addition to the standard operation of a jet engine. If you cut off the afterburner, the main part of the engine is still running and should show a contrail, for shure?! I would hold it very unlikely that both parts of the engine was cut off, very unusual occurence, I would think.. And why should the turnoff of an afterburner show up as a large cloud like that, shouldn't it rather trickle down to nothing. This is not during the WWI and that kind of irregular engines, I would assume. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 12:30 03.10.03 -0700, you wrote: Hi All, My turn to chime in on the Wales photos. First of all, it's great that it's now photos PLURAL, since this rules out Photoshop mischief, and it allows some degree of triangulation which can be used to approximate altitude. I'm leaning toward backlit aircraft contrail for three reasons -- the first of which has been mentioned, but the other two have not: 1. No sonic boom. If this was a bolide, it should have produced a whopper! Not a single report of a sonic boom. 2. Where are all the observers? This occurred near sunset -- an optimum time for people to be outdoors in (evidently) nice weather. If you think the contrail is impressive, consider what the brightness of the bolide should have been to produce it -- we're talking at least magnitude -20, probably considerably brighter. People don't miss fast-moving second suns. How is it that witnesses would be attentive enough to spot the contrail, yet inexplicably miss the far more spectacular bolide that produced it just seconds or minutes before? 3. Perhaps the best evidence is the nature of the contrail itself. Because a bolide has a downward component, any contrail it produces will also. Differential velocities of upper atmospheric winds versus altitude will cause the contrail to corkscrew and scramble fairly rapidly, much like the contrails we see from Vandenberg rocket launches on the west coast. In contrast, jet contrails are at relatively constant altitude, so while they, too, get blown by the wind, all portions of the contrail are exposed to roughly the same wind direction and velocity. The result is that jet contrails keep their shape longer, merely getting fuzzier with time. The minutes-later image of the Wales contrail doesn't show any evidence of kinking/corkscrewing, and that perhaps
Re: [meteorite-list] Large Meteorite Found In Sweden
Pekka The List, I think we must use Monica Grady et. al. and the recent 'Catalogue of Meteorites' as the definite authority of what constitute a meteorite fall/find or not. Brunflo and Osterplana is included in the Catalogue. As seems to be indicated by other postings here, there are other quarries where there are fossile meteorites in Sweden. They should be included as seperate entities if it is possible to indetify their mineralogy as separate falls. In an international discussion of meteorites, no country can choose their own individual criteria for what is a meteorite or not. I don't see a clear sign that Sweden has done that either... Another thing that puzzles me is why on the page on the link to swedish meteorites you have supplied (which I have known for some time), http://www.nrm.se/mi/swemet.html.en Muonionalusta is numbered I-IV...! Why, does this mean 'Muonionalusta' is four (or now five and even more) (totally) different iron meteorites?? The entry in the 'Catalogue of Meteorites' does in no way indicate this: 'A mass of 7.5kg was found 2.5 miles WSW of Kitkiojärvi in Muonionalusta. Description, with an analysis, 8.02 %Ni, A.G. Högbom (1908). Measurements of the Widmanstätten figures on two pieces suggest tetragonal rather than cubic symmetry, D. Malmqvist (1948). A second mass of 15kg was found in 1946, and a third of 6.2kg in 1963, F.E. Wickman (1964). A fourth piece was recovered in 1988 (approx 6 kg), Lagerbäck and Wickman (1997). Analysis, 8.42 %Ni, 2.24 ppm.Ga, 0.133 ppm.Ge, 1.6 ppm.Ir, R. Schaudy et al. (1972). Description; weathered, V.F. Buchwald (1975). Cooling rate, K.L. Rasmussen et al. (1995).' Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 01:10 02.10.03 +0300, you wrote: Hello, Bjorn and the list, the swedish NHM calculates all 4 Muonionalusta founds + now this as different ones, numbered I, II, III and IV (V?). Brunflo and Österplana are fossile-meteorites, and they are listed in another category by NHM, so the total by them is as follows; 1. Hessle 1869 2. Ställdalen 1876 3. Lundsgård 1889 4. Hedeskoga 1922 5. Lillaverke 1930 6. Ekeby 1939 7. Hallingeberg 1944 8. Långhalsen 1947 9. Hökmark 1954 10. Näs (1907) 11. Ultuna (1944) 12-15. Muonionalusta I-IV first found (1906) 16. Föllinge (1932) Fossilisied ones; 17. Brunflo 18. Österplana (several) So if we use this listing, we have 16 + 2. Cataloque of Meteorites lists all Muonionalustas as one find, so with this listing we have 13 + 2, so in fact both are correct. If Ultuna + Hessle will be counted as paired, we have that 9 during the last 100 years, if not, we have 10. If we count also the fossilised ones, we have 11 or 12 in case we count Muonionalusta as one find. Just at least to ways to list the falls and finds in Sweden. The first link (Kuriren) was to the small newspaper from north, and there is a mistake, no doubt. You have right with Bjurbole, it´s more than possible, that several tens of kg:s was taken by the local people during the recovery, so the real total may be well over 350 kg:s. By the way, this one is the only real trough ice -case as far as I know. Have tried to find also others, but no luck this far. The counting of the falls and finds may be difficult some times. In Finland we count Marjalahti as a finnish fall, cataloque lists it as a russian one. The fact is, the Marjalahti village was lost to USSR during the WW II, so to me it looks clear, Marjalahti (1902) is a genuine finnish one. That´s why the cataloque lists the total falls and finds in Finland as 12, but the finnish NHM (and me too...;-) as 13. It´s also more than possible, also Muonionalusta pieces can be found in Finland. The nearest found is located some 3 km:s from the border between Sweden and Finland. The direction of the ice during the last Ice Age was from north-west to south-east and from north to south on the area Muonionalustas has been found. Just wondering, if these pieces one day will be found in Finland, how they will be listed...;- take care, pekka s Bjørn Sørheim wrote: Hello Pekka List, 16??, Which one is the 16th, has there been one in the last years - after Osterplana(1987) that is? The last version of the Catalogue of Meteorites (2000) says there are 15 meteorites found in total in Sweden (finds or falls), so does the CD version (when choosing 'Valid' finds). When not choosing 'Valid' you get 19 items, the additional 4 are hoaxes, pseudometeorites etc. When you first posted about this new 158 kg find you cited the URL: http://www.kuriren.nu/default.asp?TargetForm=/utmatningssidan.aspArticleID= 354789CategoryID=2764ArticleStateID=2ClientID=0 In this swedish newspaper article you find this statement (swedish again): 'Det tilhor ovanligheterna med meteoritfynd i Sverige. Sedan 1800-talets borjan har bara nio stycken hittas'. In English this translates to: 'Findings of meteorites belongs to the unusual in Sweden. Since the start of the 1800s only nine meteorites have been found'. This is for sure
Re: [meteorite-list] Large Meteorite Found In Sweden
At 08:25 30.09.03 -0700, you wrote: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1423490,00.html Sweden's big find news24.com September 30, 2003 Sweden - Swedish researchers said on Tuesday that they've dug up the biggest meteorite ever found in the country. It took two days to unearth the 158kg meteorite, one of only nine found in the Scandinavian country of 9 million in the last 100 years. This is not correct. The correct figures are: There are 15 different falls represented in Sweden. 9 (nine) of them are observed falls, which give 6 finds. 'Muonionalusta' in Norbotten is a find, probably fell during the Ice Ages, about 800 000 years old on this planet. Btw, it is also the biggest when compared to Norway, where the largest is the 78 kg 'Finmarken' (or rather 'Alta') pallasite. I don't have an overview of Denmark, in Finland 'Bjurbøle' is bigger, about 350 kg, I know. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Large Meteorite Found In Sweden
Hello Pekka List, 16??, Which one is the 16th, has there been one in the last years - after Osterplana(1987) that is? The last version of the Catalogue of Meteorites (2000) says there are 15 meteorites found in total in Sweden (finds or falls), so does the CD version (when choosing 'Valid' finds). When not choosing 'Valid' you get 19 items, the additional 4 are hoaxes, pseudometeorites etc. When you first posted about this new 158 kg find you cited the URL: http://www.kuriren.nu/default.asp?TargetForm=/utmatningssidan.aspArticleID= 354789CategoryID=2764ArticleStateID=2ClientID=0 In this swedish newspaper article you find this statement (swedish again): 'Det tilhor ovanligheterna med meteoritfynd i Sverige. Sedan 1800-talets borjan har bara nio stycken hittas'. In English this translates to: 'Findings of meteorites belongs to the unusual in Sweden. Since the start of the 1800s only nine meteorites have been found'. This is for sure flatly wrong! The correct number is 15, or 16 if you have a new one not in the records of the Catalogue. How this South African(?) news site: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1423490,00.html managed to turn this into the following: 'It took two days to unearth the 158kg meteorite, one of only nine found in the Scandinavian country of 9 million in the last 100 years', I do not know - but it is also wrong, since 1903 there have been recorded 12 new finds/falls in Sweden. Or 11 if 'Ultuna' is paired with Hessle, or possible 13 if you know a new one not recorded and no pairings... A complete list with years follow: 1. Hessle 1869 2. Ställdalen 1876 3. Lundsgård 1889 4. Hedeskoga 1922 5. Lillaverke 1930 6. Ekeby 1939 7. Hallingeberg 1944 8. Långhalsen 1947 9. Hökmark 1954 10. Näs (1907) 11. Ultuna (1944) Irons 12. Muonionalusta (1906) 13. Föllinge (1932) Fossile stony meteorites 14. Brunflo (1980 - recognized) 15. Österplana (1987) Those in parantheses are finds. Still on the subject of nitpicking, concerning the TKW of 'Bjurbøle', it was known that the workers from Borgå/Porvoo did put a lot of fragments of this crumbling meteorite found below the sea-ice in their pockets while recovering it...! This according to the oldest articles about the find. So the total TRUE weight is probably more like 350-400 kg, than what is officially recorded as TKW. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim, in Norway At 22:47 01.10.03 +0300, you wrote: Bjørn Sørheim wrote: At 08:25 30.09.03 -0700, you wrote: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1423490,00.html It took two days to unearth the 158kg meteorite, one of only nine found in the Scandinavian country of 9 million in the last 100 years. This is not correct. The correct figures are: There are 15 different falls represented in Sweden. 9 (nine) of them are observed falls, which give 6 finds. 'Muonionalusta' in Norbotten is a find, probably fell during the Ice Ages, about 800 000 years old on this planet. Btw, it is also the biggest when compared to Norway, where the largest is the 78 kg 'Finmarken' (or rather 'Alta') pallasite. I don't have an overview of Denmark, in Finland 'Bjurbøle' is bigger, about 350 kg, I know. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim In fact there are 16 from Sweden before this, 4 of them are pieces of Muonionalusta, + this big one is the 5:th + 2 fossile meteorites listed. 9 are falls, as you say. Anyway, in last 100 years just 9 has been found, others are older ones. http://www.nrm.se/mi/swemet.html.en The total weight recovered of Bjurbole was aprox 328 kg:s, the biggest fragment 80.2 kg:s. http://www.netppl.fi/~jarmom/geo/met/mbjurb_e.htm take care, pekka s __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Large Meteorite Found In Sweden
Hello Pekka List, 16??, Which one is the 16th, has there been one in the last years - after Osterplana(1987) that is? The last version of the Catalogue of Meteorites (2000) says there are 15 meteorites found in total in Sweden (finds or falls), so does the CD version (when choosing 'Valid' finds). When not choosing 'Valid' you get 19 items, the additional 4 are hoaxes, pseudometeorites etc. When you first posted about this new 158 kg find you cited the URL: http://www.kuriren.nu/default.asp?TargetForm=/utmatningssidan.aspArticleID= 354789CategoryID=2764ArticleStateID=2ClientID=0 In this swedish newspaper article you find this statement (swedish again): 'Det tilhor ovanligheterna med meteoritfynd i Sverige. Sedan 1800-talets borjan har bara nio stycken hittas'. In English this translates to: 'Findings of meteorites belongs to the unusual in Sweden. Since the start of the 1800s only nine meteorites have been found'. This is for sure flatly wrong! The correct number is 15, or 16 if you have a new one not in the records of the Catalogue. How this South African(?) news site: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1423490,00.html managed to turn this into the following: 'It took two days to unearth the 158kg meteorite, one of only nine found in the Scandinavian country of 9 million in the last 100 years', I do not know - but it is also wrong, since 1903 there have been recorded 12 new finds/falls in Sweden. Or 11 if 'Ultuna' is paired with Hessle, or possible 13 if you know a new one not recorded and no pairings... A complete list with years follow: 1. Hessle 1869 2. Ställdalen 1876 3. Lundsgård 1889 4. Hedeskoga 1922 5. Lillaverke 1930 6. Ekeby 1939 7. Hallingeberg 1944 8. Långhalsen 1947 9. Hökmark 1954 10. Näs (1907) 11. Ultuna (1944) Irons 12. Muonionalusta (1906) 13. Föllinge (1932) Fossile stony meteorites 14. Brunflo (1980 - recognized) 15. Österplana (1987) Those in parantheses are finds. Still on the subject of nitpicking, concerning the TKW of 'Bjurbøle', it was known that the workers from Borgå/Porvoo did put a lot of fragments of this crumbling meteorite found below the sea-ice in their pockets while recovering it...! This according to the oldest articles about the find. So the total TRUE weight is probably more like 350-400 kg, than what is officially recorded as TKW. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim, in Norway At 22:47 01.10.03 +0300, you wrote: Bjørn Sørheim wrote: At 08:25 30.09.03 -0700, you wrote: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1423490,00.html It took two days to unearth the 158kg meteorite, one of only nine found in the Scandinavian country of 9 million in the last 100 years. This is not correct. The correct figures are: There are 15 different falls represented in Sweden. 9 (nine) of them are observed falls, which give 6 finds. 'Muonionalusta' in Norbotten is a find, probably fell during the Ice Ages, about 800 000 years old on this planet. Btw, it is also the biggest when compared to Norway, where the largest is the 78 kg 'Finmarken' (or rather 'Alta') pallasite. I don't have an overview of Denmark, in Finland 'Bjurbøle' is bigger, about 350 kg, I know. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim In fact there are 16 from Sweden before this, 4 of them are pieces of Muonionalusta, + this big one is the 5:th + 2 fossile meteorites listed. 9 are falls, as you say. Anyway, in last 100 years just 9 has been found, others are older ones. http://www.nrm.se/mi/swemet.html.en The total weight recovered of Bjurbole was aprox 328 kg:s, the biggest fragment 80.2 kg:s. http://www.netppl.fi/~jarmom/geo/met/mbjurb_e.htm take care, pekka s __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Dronino Ni % ?
Hello List, Has the researchers in Russia or elsewhere come up with the Ni % of the Dronino ataxite? It didn't say on the pages of the Vernadsky Institute which has information about the find circumstances. Neither does Ivan Koutyrev say in his Ebay listings. Is this a regular ataxite or is it ANOMalous? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] test
Is the list working by now? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] The Sun has turned!
List, Just thought we should take notice of what the Sun is up to today. I think still there will be warm days this summer.. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] 'Meteor' drop-tests, have been done?
Pekka List, At 01:58 16.06.03 +0300, you wrote: Hello, Bjorn and the list, we had some speculations last winter in Finland to try some kind of dropping, but as far as I know, nobody here has tried...;- We tried to find information about this kind of test, but with no results. We consulted people from different universities in Europe, US and Canada, and there was not information available in this kind of tests in practise. There are some scientists that do shoot small, mm-size, metal balls ito ice surfaces and study the resulting craters. They then use scaling laws to draw conclusions about the really big craters on icy bodies. Burchell and Grey at the University of Canterbury, England are two of them. But they are actually more interested in the crater form, not the cracking pattern around it. A crater is hardly of interest in the case of just the hole into a relative thin ice surface. I think the _cracking patterns_ in such cases is the feature that will tell the tale only. I'm also interested in looking at practical results in the nature, with different values of thickness of ice, temperatures, angle, speed. Think this can be also quite simply calculated and simulated, but I´m not a mathematician... Seems to be a bit removed from what you might see on a frozen lake some winter day.. Especially taking into account how easy it would be to do a drop-experiment. If you know the thickness and the structure of the ice, mass / size / angle of the falling specimen, this should not be a problem for a professional. It also should be remembered, if you make this kind of test somewhere, it´s only valid in exactly same circumstances. Usually the meteoroids don´t have any cosmic velocity left, when they drop, so they come down in free fall. The quite simple test is try to shoot a hole in the ice. Let´s say, you use 9.00 mm bullet and check the exact angle and the distance from the ice, when shoot, so the energy of the hit can be exactly calculated. More problematic case is the structure of the ice. If we are talking about steel-ice in the middle of the winter, let´s say, 60 cm:s thick, I bet, the hole you can get, it´s not deeper than 15 cm:s. The case is different in spring-time, when the ice with same 60 cm:s thickness is usually layered at least in 2 parts, strong steel-ice on the bottom, and week ice containing lot of water on the top. But anyway, think some modelling can be made. This may be a bit safer way than drop the stones from the plane. Anyway, if you are going to make this test, please, let me know the results, and also the dropping-area, so I know to wear a safety-helmet if happen to be near...;- Well, I'm probably not trying in the summer-time, even though there are lakes in the mountains here that are covered in ice at this time. But they probably do not have the sought after type of ice. Anyway, I'm still surprised that no one seems to have done such tests previously... God sumar!, Bjørn Sørheim Bjørn Sørheim wrote: At 21:37 14.06.03 GMT, you wrote: Hello List, For my part, living in a country with a tremendous number of ice-covered lakes in the winter time (a really LARGE area) dropping such objects on _ice lakes_ would be of even more interest. Just to avoid confusion: I'm simply talking about a frozen, that is a lake covered with ice - I bet you have seen it :-) Such a drop mark would surely have its very distinct kind of features, very different from other causes of marks. I have personally found no references to science on such features anywhere up to now... Surely it must have been done, yes..? Any references? Best wishes, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] 'Meteor' drop-tests, have been done?
At 21:37 14.06.03 GMT, you wrote: Hello List, For my part, living in a country with a tremendous number of ice-covered lakes in the winter time (a really LARGE area) dropping such objects on _ice lakes_ would be of even more interest. Just to avoid confusion: I'm simply talking about a frozen, that is a lake covered with ice - I bet you have seen it :-) Such a drop mark would surely have its very distinct kind of features, very different from other causes of marks. I have personally found no references to science on such features anywhere up to now... Surely it must have been done, yes..? Any references? Best wishes, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Test - ignore
Test -ignore. Is this getting through? __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] 'Meteor' drop-tests, have been done?
Hello List, There was a thread some months ago about someone going to drop heavy objects from an aeroplane on the salt flats near Salt Lake City, Utah. Did they go through with that, and are there pictures, anything on the web or elsewhere on the outcome? For my part, living in a country with a tremendous number of ice-covered lakes in the winter time (a really LARGE area) dropping such objects on _ice lakes_ would be of even more interest. Seems the task is very straightforward; hire an aeroplane an hour or so. Have some kind of cockpit controlled dropping container on the belly of the areoplane. See to that it is foolproof - IMPORTANT! Fill it with a variety of meteorite-like objects, pure iron pieces, iron slag, ordinary rocks and maybe even some softer objects. Have a variety of weights on these. Maybe one should add a long sharply colored ribbon on (some of) them, or a container with paint taped to them, that explodes on impact to easily be able to spot them on the surface. Then just choose a suitable ice-covered lake and (let the pilot) drop it. It would be a good idea to measure the ice thickness on beforehand, so one would have a good idea of whether it's going through or not. It would surely leave two different kinds of marks. This way we can get to see how a meteorite hitting the winter part of the world makes its marks on icy surfaces. We may then be able to avoid all the 'meteorwrong marks' on icy surfaces, which seems to pop up all the time - melting holes being the prime confuser. Such a drop mark would surely have its very distinct kind of features, very different from other causes of marks. I have personally found no references to science on such features anywhere up to now... As it's summer here now, it might be even easier to ask if someone have done a similar experiment. Surely it must have been done, yes..?? References? Best wishes, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Venus transit of the sun
Hello Eric, In a astronomy book written by a finish astronomer from 1969, I find this information: Next Venus passages: - 8 june 2004 (that is eight!) - 5-6 june2012 - 11 december 2117 - 8 december 2125 There are four passages every 243 years, with regular intervals 8 y., 121.5 y., 8 y., and 105.5 years. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim in Norway At 23:55 19.03.03 EST, you wrote: This is a bit off topic, but hopefully somebody out there can confirm some information for me. My father recently had a diary from my great-grandmother's step brother translated from the swedish. In it he states that he got up early on the morning of 6 Dec 1882 to observe the shadow of venus transiting the sun's disk. I believe he was in or near Australia at the time. He further states that the next occurance would be until 6 Jun 2004. Comments? It is an interesting document, he also mentions having to stop sailing at night and only sail during the day due to chunks of pumace in the ocean from the Krakatoa volcanic explosion in 1883. Eric Olson http://www.star-bits.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] 03-14-2003 Canada Light May Be Space Junk - NOT
List, No, it was a meteorite. Do some research on meteors/meteorite falls on that date in previous years. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 11:41 19.03.03 -0600, you wrote: Paper: The Chronicle-Journal City: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Date: March 14, 2003 U.S.-based research centre believes light over city may have been space junk By Kris Ketonen Officials with a Las Vegas-based aerial anomaly research centre believe the strange light seen over Thunder Bay last weekend may have been a piece of space junk re-entering the atmosphere. Colm Kelleher, who holds a PhD in biochemistry and serves as deputy administrator with the National Institute for Discovery Science - a privately funded organization that looks into things like UFOs and cattle mutilations - said there were substantial space junk reentries scheduled for atmosphere March 3 and 11. One of them was remnants from a European Space Agency launch about two weeks ago, and the other was part of a satellite, he said. Usually, they can pinpoint these things pretty accurately, he said from Las Vegas yesterday. They can usually predict a flight path. There were no re-entries scheduled for March 8, however, Kelleher said. Therefore a meteor, mentioned earlier this week by Lakehead University geologist Stephen Kissin, is also a possibility. snip __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Petrologic types
Hei Lars, Even finer grading, lowest value of 3.x means the chondrules are the most distinct, higher values that they become more 'blured'. But even 3.8 are quite distinct since it's 3, not 4,5,6 in the first place. I think it's only the petrologic type 3 that have this subdivision, it's not so much needed, or it's no so easy to make a coherent subdivision in the less distinct 1-2 4-5-6. That's as far as I understand it, at least ... Bjørn Sørheim At 08:43 12.03.03 +0100, you wrote: Ho . sorry typing error .. Hi I have been thinking - not that I do that very often - What does the petrologic type 3.8 mean ? I understand the types 3-4-5-6 but when it comes to the decimals I fall off. Can anyone enlighten me ? (or how it is spelled) I just bought a NWA 987 L3.8 so I want to know more about it. Regards Lars __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Concentrate Their Search In Galway, Ireland
Hello List, Could this fall be related to Sikhote-Alin, which also fell on 12th of February, 56 years back - 1947? It then fell at 10:38 in the morning, that would be about 1-2 am in the night in western Europe. It's also the same position of the year considering leap years. Remember that there are now proven connections of meteorite falls separated by many decades, and speculation of others, as seen on this list recently. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 17:28 06.03.03 -0800, you wrote: http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2003/03/06/news/32418.html Meteorite hunters concentrate their search in Galway Galway Advertiser (Ireland) March 6, 2003 ASTRONOMERS AND treasure hunters continue to search for the valuable meteorite thought to have fallen somewhere in Galway early in February. Preliminary reports about the fireball witnessed over Irish skies early on February 12 suggest that the meteorite may have fallen in county Galway, in Galway Bay, or off the coast of Clare but so far the exact location of the rock has not been determined. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Debris Found In Joshua Tree May Be From Columbia
Hello List, I think someone should invent the word 'Columbiawrong'! Why don't someone with the right data make a map with the groundtrack of Columbia on it, complete with shaded/colored areas according to probability of the debris fallout, also taking into account windspeed in different heights/jetstream.. Then first you have a sensible tool for searching for any possible debris. Also I wonder, how could this piece in Joshua tree retain the heath for maybe around 10 hours, since it was found in the afternoon, while Columbia went over before 6 a.m.? With all the discussion on hot meteorites on this List, I think we should have been able to refute that kind of 'proof'? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 11:15 07.02.03 -0800, you wrote: Remember someone in AZ turned in a burnt piece of toast! I agree. I've seen the photo of the metal object in Joshua Tree, and I can safely say it is definitely not burnt toast. Ron Baalke __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Re: Debris Found In Joshua Tree May Be From Columbia
Hello List, I think someone should invent the word 'Columbiawrong'! Why don't someone with the right data make a map with the groundtrack of Columbia on it, complete with shaded/colored areas according to probability of the debris fallout, also taking into account windspeed in different heights/jetstream.. Then first you have a sensible tool for searching for any possible debris. Also I wonder, how could this piece in Joshua tree retain the heath for maybe around 10 hours, since it was found in the afternoon, while Columbia went over before 6 a.m.? With all the discussion on hot meteorites on this List, I think we should have been able to refute that kind of 'proof'? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 11:15 07.02.03 -0800, you wrote: Remember someone in AZ turned in a burnt piece of toast! I agree. I've seen the photo of the metal object in Joshua Tree, and I can safely say it is definitely not burnt toast. Ron Baalke __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Atwater ice hole mystery
Hello Ron List, My original purpose when posting my first message on this subject was to see if there was any images available of this hole in Lake Tadd, and use this to compare with other incidents of such phenomena in the cold parts of the globe. To that I was partly sucessfull, as I got one picture by also posting this to a usenet newsgroup. And as I wrote there, the image is practically identical to images I have of a similar phenomenon in a lake here in Norway, where I live. I am therefore almost forced to conclude with the following: They were made by the same process! And since melting seems clearly to be out of the question here (I could go into why this is the case, if there is interest), then it follows that the Atwater case was not caused by melting. Although my intention was not to prove/disprove, neither discuss the Atwater case, this thread has turned into that. And since I was pulled into that, I read all the sources I have been able to find, and I must admit that I'm leaning more and more to the conclusion that a meteorite is of the more plausible explanations, in fact it is my prime suspect at the moment. Other facts going against melting: The Atwater hole was about 1 foot in diameter, the 3-4 feet size mentioned in some reports seems to refer to the dark area (melted snow) around the hole, probably a depression. So it is of a complete different size than the melting holes in Minnesota this year, which are _tens of meters_ in size. Remember also Atwater happened in 1999, there were not melting conditions in that year, I have not come across such reports. And the Atwater hole froze over very rapidly, so nothing points to continued melting conditions. You say that the police chief (Reed Schmidt) saying there 'was no signs of a crash impact'. I interpret his wording just to mean something like: 'There were no objects/pieces (of debris) lying on the surface adjacent to the hole, or clear signs of a crashing object, I see only a hole in the ice (with cracks)'. He keeps also saying to the press, in many newspaper articles, that he believed that something fell down there, and he wanted to find out what it was. Further he said:'The Tadd Lake is a mystery that demands further investigation and an answer'. One of the divers, Neil Brady, said to the press after the dive: 'If anything could fall in at a high velocity, I'm sure it could be buried down there. The bottom is soft, and you can only dig so deep'. Remember that in the Bjurbøle case they found it at 6-8 m depth in the mud. In the recent Shirokovskiy case it took them 47 years to find it down in the mud.. You also write that: 'Shortly after this hole was found, several more holes appeared, also bearing the same starburst-pattern. There were no reports of any sonic booms associated with these new holes'. These holes were not found on Lake Tadd, Atwater, but on lakes near Willmar (location of the foremost newspaper in this chase), Fingers Lake and others. These holes were smaller, I have myself seen hundreds of these in small areas on local lakes, they are made by snow pressing down on the ice while melting. Ice-formation specialist Charles Knight with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said according to Star Tribune: 'Knight acknowledged that characteristics of the Atwater ice hole don't fit the usual pattern. The hole was much wider than those typically formed by snow pressure, which often measure no more than an inch. Moreover, it's unusual for holes to form this way in ice measuring 18 inches thick. I've never seen it with ice that thick, I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it would take a pretty special combination of circumstances, he said...' It seems to me in general, that not enough time and resources was put into the task of determining what was the cause of the hole, a meteorite or not. Neither seems (the available) scientific knowledge at he moment up to the task of determining what is the cause of this kind of hole. Admittedly quite an effort must be put into digging into the mud to many meters of depth, and not something one would expect of the Atwater community. Sad that no one else seems to have picked up this case. While writing this I hear about the sad fate of space-shuttle, I offer my condolences, Bjørn Sørheim At 18:29 31.01.03 -0800, you wrote: The Atwater hole could hardly have been made by melting since there was a 'beautiful starburst-pattern' of large cracks around it. There was also talk of a 'funnel' through the ice, that seemed to have been made by some object. Plus the rattling boom. Sorry, if I sound skeptical, but I originally posted to this list four years ago when this hole appeared in the Minnesota lake suggesting it may possibly be a meteorite. And the fact there was one eyewitness who heard sonic booms prior the hole's discovery made it very intriging. I'm also very open to the fact that meteorites can punch holes though frozen lakes
Re: [meteorite-list] Atwater ice hole mystery - Pictures??
Hello Ron List, The Atwater hole could hardly have been made by melting since there was a 'beautiful starburst-pattern' of large cracks around it. There was also talk of a 'funnel' through the ice, that seemed to have been made by some object. Plus the rattling boom. See: http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/Atwater.jpg (It is copyrighted Star Tribune) Such cracks (exactly same look!) was also present in the case I know about locally, and also in the only proved case of a meteorite right through ice - Bjurbøle, Finland, LL4, 1899. And Bernd know about such cracks in a case in Darmstadt, Germany, 1986 where no object was found, it seems. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim At 10:32 31.01.03 -0800, you wrote: For the Atwater case still one of the best theories (my guessing) could be lightning, but wouldn't someone ivestigating this have found out if there really was lightning in the night before. Btw, is lightning normal in central Minnesota in the middle of January? I don't know about lightning, but in the lakes in Minnesota this past month, unusually warm water have appeared, opening large patches of open water in the lakes that are normally frozen over. See the article below. Ron Baalke (Go Lakers!) - http://www.weather.com/newscenter/topstories/030128minnesotalakes.html Unusual patches are appearing in lakes Associated Press January 28, 2003 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] NEW Pallasite, Shirokovsky.
At 16:25 31.01.03 -0700, you wrote: Hi from sunny Tucson everyone, I am here along with most of the meteorite dealers, some nice things around. I am announcing that I have just uploaded onto my website, the new Pallasite from Russia. This Pallasite actually fell in 1956, pierced the ice near a dam on a reservoir, and was recovered in 2002 by divers. Talking about...! We suddenly have TWO confirmed cases of meteorites through ice, what timing! I would have just loved to see a photo of that ice-surface. If it exist, that is. Would be intersting to hear the story behind it. Regards, Bjørn Sørheim This is an anomalous pallasite, very Ni-rich, very odd angular olivine's, some green, some white! I have partslices all 1mm thick! See them at http://www.meteoritehunter.com Grab this rare Pallasite fall now. __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Atwater ice hole mystery - Pictures??
Hi Al, In the Atwater case (Lake Tadd) it is situated almost inside the town, with built- up area on the shores, so I would think the inhabitants would have known if anyone were icefishing in the days leading up to the 17th. Also it had a very beautiful 'starburst' cracking pattern around it. And the inhabitants of the town were awoken by a sonic boom in the morning, just before this hole was discovered. No ice material seemed to have been found on the surface around the hole, it seemed like a tunnel was just melted through 18 of ice. There were scientists from University of Minnesota, other geologists who looked at the hole, but they didn't come up with a conclusion to what had caused it. An ice-scientist that told the press that holes with cracking patters are not unusual, said that these were normally only one ich in diameter, and that the Atwater type was definitly different from those. Added to that, exactly 1 year later +~1 day, The Tagish Lake meteorite exploded over northern Canada. Over the last years there have been many large fireballs over northern part of North America (esp. Canada), in the few days around the 17th of January. In Europe two very large meteors in 2001 and 2002 on the 17th. I don't think one can attribute all these to just the fact there are cold clear dark days in this part of the year... There was also one on Wedensday this week in Canada, see earlier post from Ron Baalke. For the Atwater case still one of the best theories (my guessing) could be lightning, but wouldn't someone ivestigating this have found out if there really was lightning in the night before. Btw, is lightning normal in central Minnesota in the middle of January? It would help if a good picture of this hole was available by the way :-) Regards, Bjørn Sørheim See some information below: At 14:17 18.01.03 -0500, you wrote: Hi Martin and Bjørn, It goes without saying (but I'll say it all the same :-) that some holes could be from ice fishing, though there should be some signs of foot prints and so forth. Also could blue ice break through from airliners? I would think natural causes would be more in number than actual falls. --AL There is some more information here: http://www.channel4000.com/news/parker/news-parker-990121-113657.html Or this text posted to the meteorite-list 22/1-99: Minnesota town puzzles over hole in iced-over lake ATWATER, Minn.(Reuters) - The fire department in this Minnesota town is investigating what caused a sound like a ''sonic boom'' and cracked the ice covering Lake Tadd, officials said Thursday. Residents of an apartment building next to Lake Tadd, 40 miles West of Minneapolis, said they were awoken before dawn Sunday by a sound like a ``sonic boom,'' but waited until Tuesday to call authorities. They waited to report the incident because ``they were afraid all their friends would think they were loony,'' city clerk Goldie Smith told Reuters. Authorities said the hole was roughly 4 feet in diameter at the entry point and surrounded by a starburst pattern, which Smith described as ``pretty cool.'' The object may have been hot, melting through the ice in a funnel shape. The hole has since frozen over. The fire department is going to wade in Saturday afternoon to find out if anything crashed into the lake. Whatever it is -- speculation is that it was a fair-sized meteorite -- several of Atwater's 1,100 residents have gotten their share of media exposure at a time of year when excitement is scarce. ``It is a nice break from the cold and snow,'' said Smith. ''It's winter; we'll take anything.'' __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Atwater ice hole mystery - Pictures??
At 14:42 18.01.03 -0800, you wrote: Added to that, exactly 1 year later +~1 day, The Tagish Lake meteorite exploded over northern Canada. Note, too, that none of the Tagish Lake meteorite fragments punctured any holes through the ice when it landed on the frozen lake. Yes, the Tagish Lake CI1 is a quite fragile carbonaceous chondrite. Specific weight ~1.5 g/cm^3. I am not shure it could punch a hole through ice, even though ice is 0.9 g/cm^3. Although a CI1 coming down probably is frozen inside, weren't that the reason theTagish Lake find was so important, it had not been contaminated by earthly substances..? And Tagish Lake in NW Canada probably also had thicker ice? But, on the other hand, considering the Pribram/Glanerbrug/Neuschwanstein relationship, they are seemingly, by an orbital similarity criterion, believed to have identical orbits in space. And yet Pribram is H5, Glanerbrug LL6, Neuschwanstein E6 (enstatite). So it sems now quite possible that an object trailing 1 year behind in the orbit could have a fairly different composition. I'm not concluding a meteorite fell into Tadd Lake, I'm just pointing to these dates and other meteor observation at this time in January. Also I think that a melting hole from melting water or moving water is the more unlikely explanation (the lake is just some hundred(s) meter in size). Maybe lightning, sudden influx of warm water from the built-up area?, - and a meteorite is not ruled out it seems. Jarmo, the hole was 2-4 feet wide... Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Atwater ice hole mystery - Pictures??
Hello List, In the early morning of 17th of January 1999, 4 years ago tomorrow! a loud bang and a big hole was discovered in 18 thick ice on a small lake in Atwater, Minnesota. The hole was about 3 feet in diameter and no one could say for shure what had caused it. Later some others were found on the same lake. Divers went down, a turtle, earthly stones and some garbage was found, but no meteorite (at least not in the winter of -99??). I have seen dozens of articles about these holes, but personally so far, NO picture of this enigma... Since there are many reports of unexplainable holes on ice all over the northern hemisphere, it would be interesting to compare the looks and morphology of such holes to one another. So, does anyone know of pictures of these holes, either on the web, or elsewhere?? Was there in the end any firm conclusion of what had caused the holes, btw? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim PS. Look up tomorrow, something is coming down at you! ( I hope ) __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Steve A. didn't send those last posts now....
Hello List, I think you last Steve Arnold bashers are wrong in that he has sent any mails after his apology. Just look at the date of his last emails you got (via the list), they are all dated the 10th and the 11th! The reason you got them now, is probably because there have been a problem with the list. See the true sequence they arrived below, found also at the archive-link. On the other hand, I don't support some of his 'unhappy' postings to the list either... Regards, Bjørn Sørheim http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2003-January/date.html #start . . . [meteorite-list] From the Admin - Recent downtime [EMAIL PROTECTED] [meteorite-list] marjalahti pallasite. yada yada yada Rosemary Hackney [meteorite-list] lessons learned at G.B. Tom aka james Knudson [meteorite-list] marjalahti pallasite. yada yada yada John Divelbiss [meteorite-list] apology STEVE ARNOLD [meteorite-list] Looking for Baby Henburys Rob Wesel [meteorite-list] NWA R-chondrite pairings John Divelbiss [meteorite-list] lessons learned at G.B. Matson, Robert [meteorite-list] NWA R-chondrite pairings rochette Fw: [meteorite-list] apology Adam Hupe [meteorite-list] Gibeons priced per carat! ROCKS ON FIRE [meteorite-list] cross section of possible new lunar M Yousef [meteorite-list] apology Bill Mason III [meteorite-list] cross section of possible new lunar M come Meteorite Meteorites [meteorite-list] cross section of possible new lunar M come Meteorite Meteorites [meteorite-list] cross section of possible new lunar - Sorry M come Meteorite Meteorites Fw: [meteorite-list] (no subject) Mark Miconi [meteorite-list] marjalahti pallasite trade MARK BOSTICK [meteorite-list] NWA R-chondrite pairings MARK BOSTICK [meteorite-list] apology Charlie Devine Last message date: Mon Jan 13 18:28:56 2003 Archived on: Mon Jan 13 13:30:14 2003 __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Feldspar minerals in the inclusions in earthly/lunar basalts
Hello list, Finding an extrusive volcanic(e.g. basaltic) stone in a volcanic field on our planet, certainly gives no hint to think it came from the Moon or Mars or elsewhere in the solar system. A bit otherwise when you find such a stone say ~500 km from nearest volcanic field. In the northern part of Europe(where I live) there of course has been ice-ages which redistributed stones by the movement of glaciers, but still the possibillity that it could be a meteorite is not entirely out of the question. The specimen I am looking at is also peppered with tiny holes, about 2mm and smaller. But the question I have is concerning the feldspar inclusions. I wonder what span in %-values there is of Albite(Na) vs. Anorthite(Ca) in the plagioclase of these inclusions in the lunar basalts compared to earthly basalts? On the practical side (testing) - would a lunar basaltic feldspar inclusion fizzle in (cold) hydrocloric acid (HCl)? Would a (Vesta) eucrite inclusion have the same values as its lunar counterpart? Regards, Bjørn Sørheim __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
