Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Robert Verish]

Mark's post reminded me that I never properly answered
Tom's original Gold Basin question.

In D. Kring et al (2001) "Gold Basin Meteorite Strewn
Field..."  this is the only mention of post-fall
transportation in the entire paper:

"The locations of the samples, particularly those on
bedrock, indicate they have not been significantly
transported after impact."

Again, not my words.  And I'm not going to comment. 

But there is an image in this article that shows a
Gold Basin stony locked into a "desert pavement" and a
description that speaks of this stony having a coating
of "desert varnish".  Given the long duration of time
required to develop this kind of patina on an
immobilized sediment, this speaks to me more of
minimal transportation after impact.

And then there's this desert-varnished GB find in my
collection that was found buried 6inches down and
under a cobble!  No there's a suspect waypoint, and it
has a very low weighting on my GB strewn field map
(along with any find from a steeply sloping surface).
;-)
Bob V.

--- Mark Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Rob, Bob and Listers,
>  
> I embrace Bob's descriptive term for scattered, but
> paired, drylake finds as accumulation zones. I
> believe that is the term used to describe the areas
> on the Antarctic ice sheet where meteorites by the
> armloads seem to be "gathered". The fact of the
> matter is, the meteorites, whether landing here or
> in Antarctica, join a world where the forces of
> fluid dynamics act incessantly to move them from
> thier original location. Does it mean find data is
> useless for mapping weight distributions of these
> zones . . . yes and no (maybe). If the fall is young
> enough then clearly there has been little time to
> interfere with the distribution, and it's probably
> trusty info; there are other cases like Gold Basin
> where there not only wasn't any observable weight
> distribution in the ~3000 finds recorded but also
> 3-4 other unrelated, independent finds within the
> strewnfield! How does THAT happen? For my money, for
> whatever reason, Gold Basin is a super-accumulation
> zone for the desert in that region.
>  
> Anyway, regardless of whether sf data can be
> trusted, the Garmin GPS gets queried and recorded
> everytime I collect a candidate in the field;
> followed by an expanding circle search out to at
> least a couple of hundred yards for pairings.
>  
> Happy holidays folks . . . 
>  
> Mark Jackson
> Chaosity Meteoritics
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[WAHLPERRY]

Hi List,

I would like know why certain areas hold more meteorites and , could these areas be Super Accumulation Areas?  For example Gold Basin has produced 3000 + meteorites. Four different types, three ordinary chondrites and one mesosiderite. There has been other strewnfields with different types of meteorite all found in the same location. 

Thanks Sonny

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Mark Jackson]

Rob, Bob and Listers,
 
I embrace Bob's descriptive term for scattered, but paired, drylake finds as accumulation zones. I believe that is the term used to describe the areas on the Antarctic ice sheet where meteorites by the armloads seem to be "gathered". The fact of the matter is, the meteorites, whether landing here or in Antarctica, join a world where the forces of fluid dynamics act incessantly to move them from thier original location. Does it mean find data is useless for mapping weight distributions of these zones . . . yes and no (maybe). If the fall is young enough then clearly there has been little time to interfere with the distribution, and it's probably trusty info; there are other cases like Gold Basin where there not only wasn't any observable weight distribution in the ~3000 finds recorded but also 3-4 other unrelated, independent finds within the strewnfield! How does THAT happen? For my money, for whatever reason, Gold
 Basin is a super-accumulation zone for the desert in that region.
 
Anyway, regardless of whether sf data can be trusted, the Garmin GPS gets queried and recorded everytime I collect a candidate in the field; followed by an expanding circle search out to at least a couple of hundred yards for pairings.
 
Happy holidays folks . . . 
 Mark Jackson
Chaosity Meteoritics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields in Proud Toms back yard?

[j . divelbiss]

You are a great guy Bob. 

Not many of us left. Ho hum.

Humbly,
JD

PS Bring back the Buster!!!

> No. I'm not Proud Tom.
> 
> But, I am Spartacus!;-)
> 
> I like to think that the real Proud Tom is the same
> person that knows the real identity of ol' Mr.
> Fraudbuster, from eBay days of yore.
> 
> "Fraudbuster" was the eBay ID of a person who would
> bid on meteorwrongs that were being auctioned as real
> meteorites - and then turn around and cancel his bid
> with the following explanation:  
> "NOT a meteorite - and the Seller KNOWS it!"
> for all the world to see.
> 
> Usually, just the sight of ol' Fraudbuster's name as
> being the high-bidder was enough to close down the
> auction.  (Certainly was cheaper than WINNING the
> auction!  Right, Dave? ;-)
> 
> My apologies to the real Proud Tom.  My fellow M-R
> Team Members must have too high of an opinion of me. 
> (That, or they think that I hammer out those web pages
> while driving between dry lakes! ;-)
> 
> Again, another case of getting credit that is
> unearned.
> Bob V.
> 
> --- David Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is Mr. V.  Proud Tom?
> > 
> > Dave F. (not proud tom)
> > 
> > Tom aka James Knudson wrote:
> > 
> > >Hello List, Bob V. wrote;
> > >
> > >"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really
> > >flattering me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me 
> > to post to the List, and he uses it most 
> > efffectively.  
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> 
> __
> 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] Dry Lake Stewnfields in Proud Toms back yard?

[David Freeman]

[Right Dave? :-) ]Must be the other-other Dave!
  
Thanks for the memory of   "Fraudbuster"...could use his services 
againHello out there Fraudbuster!"

Survey says:Ginger or Mary AnneY   or N
Proud  Tom thread vs Matteo's farries and struck one'sand the winner 
is>>>?

Cold day inwyoming, Dave Freeman

Robert Verish wrote:

No. I'm not Proud Tom.

But, I am Spartacus!;-)

I like to think that the real Proud Tom is the same
person that knows the real identity of ol' Mr.
Fraudbuster, from eBay days of yore.
"Fraudbuster" was the eBay ID of a person who would
bid on meteorwrongs that were being auctioned as real
meteorites - and then turn around and cancel his bid
with the following explanation:  
"NOT a meteorite - and the Seller KNOWS it!"
for all the world to see.

Usually, just the sight of ol' Fraudbuster's name as
being the high-bidder was enough to close down the
auction.  (Certainly was cheaper than WINNING the
auction!  Right, Dave? ;-)
My apologies to the real Proud Tom.  My fellow M-R
Team Members must have too high of an opinion of me. 
(That, or they think that I hammer out those web pages
while driving between dry lakes! ;-)

Again, another case of getting credit that is
unearned.
Bob V.
--- David Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Is Mr. V.  Proud Tom?

Dave F. (not proud tom)

Tom aka James Knudson wrote:

Hello List, Bob V. wrote;

"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really
flattering me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me 

to post to the List, and he uses it most 
efffectively.  

=== message truncated ===



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree



__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields in Proud Toms back yard?

[Robert Verish]

No. I'm not Proud Tom.

But, I am Spartacus!;-)

I like to think that the real Proud Tom is the same
person that knows the real identity of ol' Mr.
Fraudbuster, from eBay days of yore.

"Fraudbuster" was the eBay ID of a person who would
bid on meteorwrongs that were being auctioned as real
meteorites - and then turn around and cancel his bid
with the following explanation:  
"NOT a meteorite - and the Seller KNOWS it!"
for all the world to see.

Usually, just the sight of ol' Fraudbuster's name as
being the high-bidder was enough to close down the
auction.  (Certainly was cheaper than WINNING the
auction!  Right, Dave? ;-)

My apologies to the real Proud Tom.  My fellow M-R
Team Members must have too high of an opinion of me. 
(That, or they think that I hammer out those web pages
while driving between dry lakes! ;-)

Again, another case of getting credit that is
unearned.
Bob V.

--- David Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Mr. V.  Proud Tom?
> 
> Dave F. (not proud tom)
> 
> Tom aka James Knudson wrote:
> 
> >Hello List, Bob V. wrote;
> >
> >"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really
> >flattering me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me 
> to post to the List, and he uses it most 
> efffectively.  
> 
=== message truncated ===



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[moni waiblinger-seabridge]

Hello List,

i totally agree with Tom and being one of his team members i am also very 
fortunate to have had many finds.
He is a great teacher!

Thanks Bob! :-)

your team member Moni

ps. And to all of you on the list *Happy Holidays*!


From: "Tom aka James Knudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Verish" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:33:47 -0700

Hello List, Bob V. wrote;

"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!"
 Oh contraire , I think the world of Robert Verish and his opinions!
Yes, I know how to get him to post and I do this when and only when I want
to the correct answer to a particular question!  So, I am just killing two
birds with one stone, complimenting a man I respect and ensuring we get the
correct answer!  : )
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
- Original Message -
From: Robert Verish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
> Tom wrote:
> >I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
> >landed?   I bet, not many?
> >I know Bob V. will have these answers!
>
> By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
> me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
> List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
> I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!
> ;-)
>
> Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T
> "have all the answers", but I will jump at any
> opportunity to give proper credit to all of my
> colleagues and team members who have worked hard at
> recording the surface conditions at all of their find
> localities, and for sharing their observations with
> me.
>
> But for all of those who would simply accept the
> "answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some
> bad news for you.  There ain't no experts, and there
> are no simple answers.  Hell!  We're still trying to
> figure out how to word sensible questions!
>
> But I do like to give myself credit for being one of
> the first to question whether any "good" strewn field
> data could be obtained from documenting meteorite
> finds on dry lakes.  Of course, since much of the talk
> about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own
> web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal
> advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes"
> school of thought.
>
> I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields
> are in the eye of the beholder.  But after conferring
> with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all
> of our observations tend to say the same thing, and
> semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of
> objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.
>
> So the short answer is:
> on dry lakebeds,  we prefer to call these -
> accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus,
> "strewn fields".
>
> But keep in mind which "camp" I belong.
> I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the
> answers" school of thought!
> ;-)
> Bob V.
>
>
> [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
> Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700
>
> Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions
> that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the
> answers to John's questions too.  I never quite
> thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have
> to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn
> field data or nothing more than rock movement data?
>
> I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
> landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these
> answers!
> Thanks, Tom
> Peregrineflier <><
> Yea, that's right,
> The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
>
>
> > To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:
> >
> > Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped
> in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of
> three apparent pieces from same fall created a
> description by Adam that these finds might constitute
> a new strewnfield.
> >
> > Questions/observations in regards to desert
> strewnfields.
> >
>

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[meteoriteshow]

I'm thinking of it actually. I have a friend who is 
travelling in Northern Canada or Greenland from time to time, on skis and towing 
a bourka, and I may go with him in about two years (long term plan!). And then, 
should it come true, you can be sure that I will watch the ground while towing 
my bourka!!!
Cheers
Fred

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Howard Wu 
  
  To: meteoriteshow ; E. L. Jones 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:21 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake 
  Stewnfields??
  
  Why do people look for meteorites out in the desert or on dried lake 
  beds? (Rhetorical question) More so in Antartica.
   
  There are lots of terrestial rocks in Antartica in the mountains and near 
  the shores. Just look at those penguin rookeries. However you don't find ice 
  sheets in the Sahara. The bedrock can be as much as two miles beneath the 
  surface of these. These glaciers also flow as a block few inches a 
  year taking these fallen rocks with them.This natural conveyor belt 
  concentrates ancient falls near the foothills of mountain ranges where 
  sublimation and wind re-exposes these ancient falls.
   
  I've have friend who have gone to Antartica but you can only take back 
  pictures. Try Greenland.
   
  Howard 
  meteoriteshow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Is it? It must be special from Antarctica 
because when this sound happens in the Sahara Desert, it is either a pothole 
or a stone which not extraterrestrial... It is true that stones in 
Antarctica are most of the time not terrestrial!
When are you taking me there Howard? I'd like 
to...
Bye and thanks.
Fred

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Howard 
  Wu 
  To: E. L. Jones ; meteoriteshow 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:35 
      PM
      Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry 
  Lake Stewnfields??
  
  How meteorites where first found in Antartica:
   
  Did you mention that lots of antartic is covered with ice two miles 
  deep so that if your driving around in your snow mobile and hear a 
  "thump..thump" cause you hit a rock, you've found a meteorite fallen from 
  the sky.
   
  Howard Wu"E. L. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  The 
short answer is-- like everywhere else, they have been accumulating 
over time but they've been in deep freeze for eons and there have 
been no meteorite list members there to pick them up--well actually 
there have been some meteorite list members there picking them up 
but that is another story.Magnetism has nothing to do with 
concentrating meteorite falls. I can see where one might make that 
inference. Meteorites are found in Antarctica because, in several 
places, the flowing ice gets thrust up hill over a mountain ridge 
like a push-up popcicle. There the ice is ablated/scoured away by 
the wind. This leaves anything that has fallen into the ice left, or 
churned up by the ice lying on the surface. Meteorites and other 
rocks lie atop of the ice formation they were formerly buried in. 
Against the white background they are easier for researchers to 
find. I say this to make the point that not everything on the ice is 
a meteorite.More meteorites may be"found" there but there is no 
evidence that more meteorites "fall" 
there.Eltonmeteoriteshow wrote:> Hi Doug and 
List,> > I also wonder about another point on meteorite 
falls... Since I > started hunting them, I thought that they can 
fall anywhere, the > location of their landing place depending on 
their orbit around the > sun and the angle they meet the Earth 
with. Is that right or are there > any areas on our planet where 
they get more "attracted" ?> There have been more finds in 
Antarctic than anywhere else, but I > guess that it's simply 
because people have been searching for them > there for a longer 
time, but can it be for another reason ? Has the > magnetic field 
linking the poles any effect (like for boreal auroras) > ? 
...> I'm not a scientist and maybe my question sounds strange, 
but should > anybody have a clear and easy to understand 
explanation, thanks in > advance for sending it, just for my 
knowledge.> Kind regards> > Frederic Beroud> 
www.meteoriteshow.com > IMCA 
#2491__Meteorite-list 
mailing 
list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
  
  
  BT 
  Yahoo! Broadband

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Howard Wu]

Why do people look for meteorites out in the desert or on dried lake beds? (Rhetorical question) More so in Antartica.
 
There are lots of terrestial rocks in Antartica in the mountains and near the shores. Just look at those penguin rookeries. However you don't find ice sheets in the Sahara. The bedrock can be as much as two miles beneath the surface of these. These glaciers also flow as a block few inches a year taking these fallen rocks with them.This natural conveyor belt concentrates ancient falls near the foothills of mountain ranges where sublimation and wind re-exposes these ancient falls.
 
I've have friend who have gone to Antartica but you can only take back pictures. Try Greenland.
 
Howard 
 meteoriteshow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Is it? It must be special from Antarctica because when this sound happens in the Sahara Desert, it is either a pothole or a stone which not extraterrestrial... It is true that stones in Antarctica are most of the time not terrestrial!
When are you taking me there Howard? I'd like to...
Bye and thanks.
Fred

- Original Message - 
From: Howard Wu 
To: E. L. Jones ; meteoriteshow 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

How meteorites where first found in Antartica:
 
Did you mention that lots of antartic is covered with ice two miles deep so that if your driving around in your snow mobile and hear a "thump..thump" cause you hit a rock, you've found a meteorite fallen from the sky.
 
Howard Wu"E. L. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The short answer is-- like everywhere else, they have been accumulating over time but they've been in deep freeze for eons and there have been no meteorite list members there to pick them up--well actually there have been some meteorite list members there picking them up but that is another story.Magnetism has nothing to do with concentrating meteorite falls. I can see where one might make that inference. Meteorites are found in Antarctica because, in several places, the flowing ice gets thrust up hill over a mountain ridge like a push-up popcicle. There the ice is ablated/scoured away by the wind. This leaves anything that has fallen into the ice left, or churned up by the ice lying on the surface. Meteorites and other rocks lie atop of the ice formation they were formerly buried in. Against the white background they are easier for
 researchers to find. I say this to make the point that not everything on the ice is a meteorite.More meteorites may be"found" there but there is no evidence that more meteorites "fall" there.Eltonmeteoriteshow wrote:> Hi Doug and List,> > I also wonder about another point on meteorite falls... Since I > started hunting them, I thought that they can fall anywhere, the > location of their landing place depending on their orbit around the > sun and the angle they meet the Earth with. Is that right or are there > any areas on our planet where they get more "attracted" ?> There have been more finds in Antarctic than anywhere else, but I > guess that it's simply because people have been searching for them > there for a longer time, but can it be for another reason ? Has the > magnetic field linking the poles any effect (like for boreal auroras) > ? ...> I'm
 not a scientist and maybe my question sounds strange, but should > anybody have a clear and easy to understand explanation, thanks in > advance for sending it, just for my knowledge.> Kind regards> > Frederic Beroud> www.meteoriteshow.com > IMCA #2491__Meteorite-list mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. 

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[meteoriteshow]

Is it? It must be special from Antarctica because 
when this sound happens in the Sahara Desert, it is either a pothole or a stone 
which not extraterrestrial... It is true that stones in Antarctica are most of 
the time not terrestrial!
When are you taking me there Howard? I'd like 
to...
Bye and thanks.
Fred

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Howard Wu 
  
  To: E. L. Jones ; meteoriteshow 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:35 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake 
  Stewnfields??
  
  How meteorites where first found in Antartica:
   
  Did you mention that lots of antartic is covered with ice two miles deep 
  so that if your driving around in your snow mobile and hear a 
  "thump..thump" cause you hit a rock, you've found a meteorite fallen from the 
  sky.
   
  Howard Wu"E. L. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  The 
short answer is-- like everywhere else, they have been accumulating over 
time but they've been in deep freeze for eons and there have been no 
meteorite list members there to pick them up--well actually there have 
been some meteorite list members there picking them up but that is 
another story.Magnetism has nothing to do with concentrating 
meteorite falls. I can see where one might make that inference. 
Meteorites are found in Antarctica because, in several places, the 
flowing ice gets thrust up hill over a mountain ridge like a push-up 
popcicle. There the ice is ablated/scoured away by the wind. This leaves 
anything that has fallen into the ice left, or churned up by the ice 
lying on the surface. Meteorites and other rocks lie atop of the ice 
formation they were formerly buried in. Against the white background 
they are easier for researchers to find. I say this to make the point 
that not everything on the ice is a meteorite.More meteorites 
may be"found" there but there is no evidence that more meteorites "fall" 
there.Eltonmeteoriteshow wrote:> Hi Doug and 
List,> > I also wonder about another point on meteorite 
falls... Since I > started hunting them, I thought that they can fall 
anywhere, the > location of their landing place depending on their 
orbit around the > sun and the angle they meet the Earth with. Is 
that right or are there > any areas on our planet where they get more 
"attracted" ?> There have been more finds in Antarctic than anywhere 
else, but I > guess that it's simply because people have been 
searching for them > there for a longer time, but can it be for 
another reason ? Has the > magnetic field linking the poles any 
effect (like for boreal auroras) > ? ...> I'm not a scientist 
and maybe my question sounds strange, but should > anybody have a 
clear and easy to understand explanation, thanks in > advance for 
sending it, just for my knowledge.> Kind regards> > 
Frederic Beroud> www.meteoriteshow.com > IMCA 
#2491__Meteorite-list 
mailing 
list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
  
  
  BT 
  Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer 
  ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. 

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields in Proud Toms back yard?

[David Freeman]

Is Mr. V.  Proud Tom?

Dave F. (not proud tom)

Tom aka James Knudson wrote:

Hello List, Bob V. wrote;

"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!"
Oh contraire , I think the world of Robert Verish and his opinions!
Yes, I know how to get him to post and I do this when and only when I want
to the correct answer to a particular question!  So, I am just killing two
birds with one stone, complimenting a man I respect and ensuring we get the
correct answer!  : )
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
- Original Message -
From: Robert Verish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

Tom wrote:

I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
landed?   I bet, not many?
I know Bob V. will have these answers!
By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!
;-)
Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T
"have all the answers", but I will jump at any
opportunity to give proper credit to all of my
colleagues and team members who have worked hard at
recording the surface conditions at all of their find
localities, and for sharing their observations with
me.
But for all of those who would simply accept the
"answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some
bad news for you.  There ain't no experts, and there
are no simple answers.  Hell!  We're still trying to
figure out how to word sensible questions!
But I do like to give myself credit for being one of
the first to question whether any "good" strewn field
data could be obtained from documenting meteorite
finds on dry lakes.  Of course, since much of the talk
about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own
web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal
advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes"
school of thought.
I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields
are in the eye of the beholder.  But after conferring
with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all
of our observations tend to say the same thing, and
semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of
objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.
So the short answer is:
on dry lakebeds,  we prefer to call these -
accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus,
"strewn fields".
But keep in mind which "camp" I belong.
I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the
answers" school of thought!
;-)
Bob V.
[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700
Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions
that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the
answers to John's questions too.  I never quite
thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have
to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn
field data or nothing more than rock movement data?
I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these
answers!
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:

Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped

in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of
three apparent pieces from same fall created a
description by Adam that these finds might constitute
a new strewnfield.
Questions/observations in regards to desert

strewnfields.

1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the

likelihood of the
area
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in

desert locale usually
get
described as a stewnfield?

2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in

these environments take the strewnfield idea down a
notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their
proximity within the bounds of normal surface
movements qualify them to be still within the original
strewnfield?
3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new

strewnfield more about this location being a new place
to find more than one meteorite of the same
apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall
characteristics?
I guess I'm just curious about the use of word

strewnfield in this case?

Yearning to be set straight,

John

__



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect 

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[David Freeman]

Thank you Bob;
I still have a "strewnfield of one" up on my dry lake bed.  Did it move, 
not since I found it.  Did it move before that, don't know,  I wasn't 
there then. We finally have fulgurites in our part of the desert, 
previously only rumored here.
Long and Lat,
Dave Freeman
Wyoming Meteorite Recovery Team Leader
ebay user ID mjwy with auctions running wild!

Robert Verish wrote:

Tom wrote:

I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
landed?   I bet, not many? 
I know Bob V. will have these answers!

By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong! 
;-)

Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T
"have all the answers", but I will jump at any
opportunity to give proper credit to all of my
colleagues and team members who have worked hard at
recording the surface conditions at all of their find
localities, and for sharing their observations with
me.  

But for all of those who would simply accept the
"answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some
bad news for you.  There ain't no experts, and there
are no simple answers.  Hell!  We're still trying to
figure out how to word sensible questions! 

But I do like to give myself credit for being one of
the first to question whether any "good" strewn field
data could be obtained from documenting meteorite
finds on dry lakes.  Of course, since much of the talk
about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own
web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal
advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes"
school of thought.   

I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields
are in the eye of the beholder.  But after conferring
with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all
of our observations tend to say the same thing, and 
semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of
objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.  

So the short answer is:
on dry lakebeds,  we prefer to call these -
accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus,
"strewn fields".
But keep in mind which "camp" I belong.
I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the
answers" school of thought!
;-)
Bob V.
[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields?? 
Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700 

Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions
that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the
answers to John's questions too.  I never quite
thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have
to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn
field data or nothing more than rock movement data? 

I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these
answers!
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:

Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped

in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of
three apparent pieces from same fall created a
description by Adam that these finds might constitute
a new strewnfield.
Questions/observations in regards to desert

strewnfields.

1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the

likelihood of the
area
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in

desert locale usually
get
described as a stewnfield?

2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in

these environments take the strewnfield idea down a
notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their
proximity within the bounds of normal surface
movements qualify them to be still within the original
strewnfield?
3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new

strewnfield more about this location being a new place
to find more than one meteorite of the same
apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall
characteristics?
I guess I'm just curious about the use of word

strewnfield in this case?

Yearning to be set straight,

John

__



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
__
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] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Howard Wu]

How meteorites where first found in Antartica:
 
Did you mention that lots of antartic is covered with ice two miles deep so that if your driving around in your snow mobile and hear a "thump..thump" cause you hit a rock, you've found a meteorite fallen from the sky.
 
Howard Wu"E. L. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The short answer is-- like everywhere else, they have been accumulating over time but they've been in deep freeze for eons and there have been no meteorite list members there to pick them up--well actually there have been some meteorite list members there picking them up but that is another story.Magnetism has nothing to do with concentrating meteorite falls. I can see where one might make that inference. Meteorites are found in Antarctica because, in several places, the flowing ice gets thrust up hill over a mountain ridge like a push-up popcicle. There the ice is ablated/scoured away by the wind. This leaves anything that has fallen into the ice left, or churned up by the ice lying on the surface. Meteorites and other rocks lie atop of the ice formation they were formerly buried in. Against the white background they are easier for
 researchers to find. I say this to make the point that not everything on the ice is a meteorite.More meteorites may be"found" there but there is no evidence that more meteorites "fall" there.Eltonmeteoriteshow wrote:> Hi Doug and List,> > I also wonder about another point on meteorite falls... Since I > started hunting them, I thought that they can fall anywhere, the > location of their landing place depending on their orbit around the > sun and the angle they meet the Earth with. Is that right or are there > any areas on our planet where they get more "attracted" ?> There have been more finds in Antarctic than anywhere else, but I > guess that it's simply because people have been searching for them > there for a longer time, but can it be for another reason ? Has the > magnetic field linking the poles any effect (like for boreal auroras) > ? ...> I'm
 not a scientist and maybe my question sounds strange, but should > anybody have a clear and easy to understand explanation, thanks in > advance for sending it, just for my knowledge.> Kind regards> > Frederic Beroud> www.meteoriteshow.com > IMCA #2491__Meteorite-list mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list   BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. 

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[E. L. Jones]

The short answer is--  like everywhere else, they have been accumulating 
over time but they've been in deep freeze for eons and there have been 
no meteorite list members there to pick them up--well actually there 
have been some meteorite list members there picking them up  but that is 
another story.

Magnetism has nothing to do with concentrating meteorite falls. I can 
see where one might make that inference.  Meteorites are found in 
Antarctica because, in several places, the flowing ice  gets thrust up 
hill over a mountain ridge like a push-up popcicle. There the ice is 
ablated/scoured away by the wind.  This leaves anything that has fallen 
into the ice left, or churned up by the ice lying on the surface.  
Meteorites and other rocks lie  atop of the ice formation they were 
formerly buried in. Against the white background they are easier for 
researchers to find.  I say this to make the point that not everything 
on the ice is a meteorite.

More meteorites may be"found" there but there is no evidence that more 
meteorites "fall" there.

Elton

meteoriteshow wrote:

Hi Doug and List,
 
I also wonder about another point on meteorite falls... Since I 
started hunting them, I thought that they can fall anywhere, the 
location of their landing place depending on their orbit around the 
sun and the angle they meet the Earth with. Is that right or are there 
any areas on our planet where they get more "attracted" ?
There have been more finds in Antarctic than anywhere else, but I 
guess that it's simply because people have been searching for them 
there for a longer time, but can it be for another reason ? Has the 
magnetic field linking the poles any effect (like for boreal auroras) 
? ...
I'm not a scientist and maybe my question sounds strange, but should 
anybody have a clear and easy to understand explanation, thanks in 
advance for sending it, just for my knowledge.
Kind regards
 
Frederic Beroud
www.meteoriteshow.com 
IMCA #2491


__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Tom aka James Knudson]

Hello List, Bob V. wrote;

"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!"

 Oh contraire , I think the world of Robert Verish and his opinions!
Yes, I know how to get him to post and I do this when and only when I want
to the correct answer to a particular question!  So, I am just killing two
birds with one stone, complimenting a man I respect and ensuring we get the
correct answer!  : )

Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168

- Original Message -
From: Robert Verish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??


> Tom wrote:
> >I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
> >landed?   I bet, not many?
> >I know Bob V. will have these answers!
>
> By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
> me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
> List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
> I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!
> ;-)
>
> Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T
> "have all the answers", but I will jump at any
> opportunity to give proper credit to all of my
> colleagues and team members who have worked hard at
> recording the surface conditions at all of their find
> localities, and for sharing their observations with
> me.
>
> But for all of those who would simply accept the
> "answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some
> bad news for you.  There ain't no experts, and there
> are no simple answers.  Hell!  We're still trying to
> figure out how to word sensible questions!
>
> But I do like to give myself credit for being one of
> the first to question whether any "good" strewn field
> data could be obtained from documenting meteorite
> finds on dry lakes.  Of course, since much of the talk
> about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own
> web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal
> advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes"
> school of thought.
>
> I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields
> are in the eye of the beholder.  But after conferring
> with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all
> of our observations tend to say the same thing, and
> semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of
> objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.
>
> So the short answer is:
> on dry lakebeds,  we prefer to call these -
> accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus,
> "strewn fields".
>
> But keep in mind which "camp" I belong.
> I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the
> answers" school of thought!
> ;-)
> Bob V.
>
>
> [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
> Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700
>
> Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions
> that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the
> answers to John's questions too.  I never quite
> thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have
> to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn
> field data or nothing more than rock movement data?
>
> I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
> landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these
> answers!
> Thanks, Tom
> Peregrineflier <><
> Yea, that's right,
> The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
>
>
> > To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:
> >
> > Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped
> in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of
> three apparent pieces from same fall created a
> description by Adam that these finds might constitute
> a new strewnfield.
> >
> > Questions/observations in regards to desert
> strewnfields.
> >
> > 1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the
> likelihood of the
> area
> > being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in
> desert locale usually
> get
> > described as a stewnfield?
> >
> > 2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in
> these environments take the strewnfield idea down a
> notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their
> proximity within the bounds of normal surface
> movements qua

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[meteoriteshow]

Hi Doug and List,
 
I also wonder about another point on meteorite 
falls... Since I started hunting them, I thought that they can fall anywhere, 
the location of their landing place depending on their orbit around the sun and 
the angle they meet the Earth with. Is that right or are there any areas on our 
planet where they get more "attracted" ?
There have been more finds in Antarctic than 
anywhere else, but I guess that it's simply because people have been searching 
for them there for a longer time, but can it be for another reason ? Has the 
magnetic field linking the poles any effect (like for boreal auroras) ? 
...
I'm not a scientist and maybe my question sounds 
strange, but should anybody have a clear and easy to understand explanation, 
thanks in advance for sending it, just for my knowledge.
Kind regards
 
Frederic Beroudwww.meteoriteshow.comIMCA 
#2491

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:49 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake 
  Stewnfields??
  Hi John, I think if we get back to basic 
  definitions, a strewn field is an ellipsoid shape caused by a mid air 
  explosion raining down material, as far as I understand.  What happens 
  afterwards to the material is irrelevant.  And the strewn field is a 
  geometric representation fitted to the fall in practice, not the actual 
  individual stones.  If some gets moved, picked clean, the boundaries of 
  the strewn field can't change, from their original definition.Perhaps 
  some of the hunters among us will not see it that way...as strewn tends to 
  bring a connotation of waltzing in and cleaning up.  And an empty strewn 
  field sounds odd...So I would think that the technical "set one 
  straight answer" you want is that:  Mathematically it takes at least four 
  border points to make an ellipse, but to actually be able to fit one with any 
  confidence in an area, you need plenty more, to fill in the area.  A neat 
  statistical definition seems impractical, so it will come down top the field 
  researcher's opinion.  If the one who did the research wants to call it a 
  strewn field and their is evidence for a mid air explosion...then we should 
  have one.  And if there are a few rocks...in the desert, or in Chicago, 
  and the principal investigator(s) don't feel there is enough for an ellipse, 
  then its not, because they say so.  An it is a good assumption if we 
  happen upon an old scattered field, we can say...this might be a strewn field, 
  but lacking a good cause-effect ellipse explanation there can't be a right 
  answer for lack of data.  In the end one can probably collect opinions on 
  this until blue in the face...and who calls what a what...but for 
  what?Strewn fields are simply human categories so we can make sense 
  out of natural events that don't have to conform to our neat, ways of 
  nomenclature.  Just like the concept of a species or a race in 
  biology.  You know an obvious one when you see it...but when you start 
  taking it as gospel and look at the limits of the definition, the whole think 
  breaks down, and mass consensus isn't reached...plus air resistance already 
  distorts a strewn field to a researcher.  So there has got to be a little 
  eyeballing going on since tiny particles don't fall nicely.  If it looks 
  like a strewn field, (tastes like one), ...Sipping my hot 
  chocolate...SaludosDoug DawnMexicoEn un mensaje con fecha 
  12/15/2003 10:17:15 PM Mexico Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  escribe:
  To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:Recent finds from 
the Nevada dry lakes were grouped in a small area within a dry lake. The 
finding of three apparent pieces from same fall created a description by 
Adam that these finds might constitute a new strewnfield. 
Questions/observations in regards to desert strewnfields.1. 
Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the likelihood of the area 
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in desert locale usually 
get described as a stewnfield?2. Does the fact that many rocks 
get moved around in these environments take the strewnfield idea down a 
notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their proximity within the 
bounds of normal surface movements qualify them to be still within the 
original strewnfield? 3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new 
strewnfield more about this location being a new place to find more than 
one meteorite of the same apparent fall?...and not so much about the 
actual fall characteristics?I guess I'm just curious about the use 
of word strewnfield in this case?Yearning to be set 
straight,John

[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Robert Verish]

Tom wrote:
>I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
>landed?   I bet, not many? 
>I know Bob V. will have these answers!

By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering
me.  Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the
List, and he uses it most effectively.  He knows that
I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong! 
;-)

Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T
"have all the answers", but I will jump at any
opportunity to give proper credit to all of my
colleagues and team members who have worked hard at
recording the surface conditions at all of their find
localities, and for sharing their observations with
me.  

But for all of those who would simply accept the
"answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some
bad news for you.  There ain't no experts, and there
are no simple answers.  Hell!  We're still trying to
figure out how to word sensible questions! 

But I do like to give myself credit for being one of
the first to question whether any "good" strewn field
data could be obtained from documenting meteorite
finds on dry lakes.  Of course, since much of the talk
about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own
web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal
advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes"
school of thought.   

I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields
are in the eye of the beholder.  But after conferring
with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all
of our observations tend to say the same thing, and 
semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of
objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.  

So the short answer is:
on dry lakebeds,  we prefer to call these -
accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus,
"strewn fields".

But keep in mind which "camp" I belong.
I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the
answers" school of thought!
;-)
Bob V.

 
[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields?? 
Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700 

Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions
that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the
answers to John's questions too.  I never quite
thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have
to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn
field data or nothing more than rock movement data? 

I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they
landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these
answers!
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??


> To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:
>
> Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped
in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of
three apparent pieces from same fall created a
description by Adam that these finds might constitute
a new strewnfield.
>
> Questions/observations in regards to desert
strewnfields.
>
> 1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the
likelihood of the
area
> being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in
desert locale usually
get
> described as a stewnfield?
>
> 2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in
these environments take the strewnfield idea down a
notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their
proximity within the bounds of normal surface
movements qualify them to be still within the original
strewnfield?
>
> 3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new
strewnfield more about this location being a new place
to find more than one meteorite of the same
apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall
characteristics?
>
> I guess I'm just curious about the use of word
strewnfield in this case?
>
> Yearning to be set straight,
>
> John
>
> __



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[Tom aka James Knudson]

Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions that should be on our
list!!! I to want to hear the answers to John's questions too.  I never
quite thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have to wonder if any
of the strewn fields data is strewn field data or nothing more than rock
movement data? I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they landed, I
bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these answers!
Thanks, Tom
Peregrineflier <><
Yea, that's right,
The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??


> To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:
>
> Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped in a small area within
a
> dry lake. The finding of three apparent pieces from same fall created a
> description by Adam that these finds might constitute a new strewnfield.
>
> Questions/observations in regards to desert strewnfields.
>
> 1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the likelihood of the
area
> being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in desert locale usually
get
> described as a stewnfield?
>
> 2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in these environments
take
> the strewnfield idea down a notch with rocks being scattered?...or does
their
> proximity within the bounds of normal surface movements qualify them to be
> still within the original strewnfield?
>
> 3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new strewnfield more about this
> location being a new place to find more than one meteorite of the same
> apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall characteristics?
>
> I guess I'm just curious about the use of word strewnfield in this case?
>
> Yearning to be set straight,
>
> John
>
>
> __
> 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] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[MexicoDoug]

Hi John, I think if we get back to basic definitions, a strewn field is an ellipsoid shape caused by a mid air explosion raining down material, as far as I understand.  What happens afterwards to the material is irrelevant.  And the strewn field is a geometric representation fitted to the fall in practice, not the actual individual stones.  If some gets moved, picked clean, the boundaries of the strewn field can't change, from their original definition.

Perhaps some of the hunters among us will not see it that way...as strewn tends to bring a connotation of waltzing in and cleaning up.  And an empty strewn field sounds odd...

So I would think that the technical "set one straight answer" you want is that:  Mathematically it takes at least four border points to make an ellipse, but to actually be able to fit one with any confidence in an area, you need plenty more, to fill in the area.  A neat statistical definition seems impractical, so it will come down top the field researcher's opinion.  If the one who did the research wants to call it a strewn field and their is evidence for a mid air explosion...then we should have one.  And if there are a few rocks...in the desert, or in Chicago, and the principal investigator(s) don't feel there is enough for an ellipse, then its not, because they say so.  An it is a good assumption if we happen upon an old scattered field, we can say...this might be a strewn field, but lacking a good cause-effect ellipse explanation there can't be a right answer for lack of data.  In the end one can probably collect opinions on this until blue in the face...and who calls what a what...but for what?

Strewn fields are simply human categories so we can make sense out of natural events that don't have to conform to our neat, ways of nomenclature.  Just like the concept of a species or a race in biology.  You know an obvious one when you see it...but when you start taking it as gospel and look at the limits of the definition, the whole think breaks down, and mass consensus isn't reached...plus air resistance already distorts a strewn field to a researcher.  So there has got to be a little eyeballing going on since tiny particles don't fall nicely.  If it looks like a strewn field, (tastes like one), ...

Sipping my hot chocolate...Saludos
Doug Dawn
Mexico

En un mensaje con fecha 12/15/2003 10:17:15 PM Mexico Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribe:



To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:

Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped in a small area within a 
dry lake. The finding of three apparent pieces from same fall created a 
description by Adam that these finds might constitute a new strewnfield. 

Questions/observations in regards to desert strewnfields.

1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the likelihood of the area 
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in desert locale usually get 
described as a stewnfield?

2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in these environments take 
the strewnfield idea down a notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their 
proximity within the bounds of normal surface movements qualify them to be 
still within the original strewnfield? 

3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new strewnfield more about this 
location being a new place to find more than one meteorite of the same 
apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall characteristics?

I guess I'm just curious about the use of word strewnfield in this case?

Yearning to be set straight,

John

[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??

[j . divelbiss]

To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:

Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped in a small area within a 
dry lake. The finding of three apparent pieces from same fall created a 
description by Adam that these finds might constitute a new strewnfield. 

Questions/observations in regards to desert strewnfields.

1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the likelihood of the area 
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in desert locale usually get 
described as a stewnfield?

2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in these environments take 
the strewnfield idea down a notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their 
proximity within the bounds of normal surface movements qualify them to be 
still within the original strewnfield? 

3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new strewnfield more about this 
location being a new place to find more than one meteorite of the same 
apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall characteristics?

I guess I'm just curious about the use of word strewnfield in this case?

Yearning to be set straight,

John


__
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list