I think at this time I will just hold on to my piece of Shirokovsky. Seems like the smart thing to do while this all gets sorted out. A piece of Shirokovsky could be a very sought after sample in years to come, depending on the outcome of this controversy.
Randy
>From: "Laurie Kallis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [meteorite-list] Shirokovsky
>Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:38:49 -0400
>
>First, let me apologize for the length of this posting.
>
>We have been involved with the distribution of Shirokovsky Meteorite
>since family made the recovery last year. Shirokovskymeteorite.com
>is our website.
>Since questions of the meteorite's authenticity were raised we have
>refrained from making sales and have added a clause to that effect
>to our webiste.
>One of the members of the Russian group who made the recovery has
>written in response to the the questions of authenticity and the
>accusations. We have translated his response and pasted it into the
>body of this email. This same article will soon be added to the
>website.
>
>Specimens, properly prepared specimens, are currently being retested
>in St. Petersburg.
>
>Until then........
>
>
>So,what on Earth is it?
>Search Expeditions for the Ugleuralsky (Shirokovsky) Meteorite:
>2000-2003
>What distinguished the search expeditions then known as the
>�Ugleuralsky� meteorite expeditions from other contemporary
>meteoritic expeditions was their official tone: the preparation
>under the auspices of the Russian Geographical Society and the
>involvement of mass media. Thirty people, not counting the local
>volunteers and Shirokovsky Power Station staff, participated in the
>four search expeditions that took place between 2000 and 2003.
>First hand witnesses of the meteorite fall who still live in the
>Shirokovsky village, those who came to the hole in the ice after
>experiencing the flash of light and the sound effect in 1956, were
>thoroughly questioned. Their recollections of the location of the
>point of impact coincided with the topographic tyings to the terrain
>reported by the USSR Sverdlovsk Academy of Science expedition
>carried out in 1956, immediately after the fall.
>A detailed relief map of the reservoir bottom supplied by the board
>of the Shirokovsky Power Station, in concordance with the opinions
>of specialists in ballistics, determined the extent of the search
>area.
>The search proved more difficult than expected because constant
>removal of sunken timber logs from the reservoir bottom over the
>years had dispersed the meteorite fragments over a much larger area
>than was originally anticipated. Eventually, with the help of a
>metal detector, our group recovered approximately 150 kg of samples.
>
>
>Encountering Difficulties
>
>The friendliness shown by the local population was inversely
>proportional to the growing awareness of the potential value of the
>possible find. A representative of the local �Family�, paid us a
>visit by jeep, showing a great but vaguely formulated interest in
>our diving activities.
>After our diving group departed in late spring, scientists from the
>city of Sverdlovsk, led by professor Grokhovsky, arrived with their
>own group of divers who risked their lives on weakened ice that had
>developed cracks and was no longer safe to walk on in the hope of
>locating any meteoritic substance missed by our group.
>We appealed to the Committee for Meteorites at the Vernadsky
>Institute to have samples of the Shirokovsky specimens tested. Our
>appeal was rejected on the grounds that they had no information
>about the Ugleuralsky meteorite fall, despite a number of scientific
>and media reports dating back to 1956.
>Sampling services and subsequent registration were offered by
>enthusiast A. Milanovsky (http://meteorites.narod.ru), but our group
>was not looking for easy ways. We planned to have the Shirokovsky
>samples tested and registered as a meteorite in another country. We
>sent a representative to the Girorne Meteoritic Fair in Germany
>where he met people from the same CMET who originally rejected our
>appeal to have the samples tested. This time, they convinced our
>representative that it would be patriotic to carry out the research
>and register the meteorite in Russia.
>
>
>Defining a Meteorite
>
>Further developments in our quest to have Shirokovsky registered as
>a meteorite can serve as a precedent for future discussions on the
>topic �what should be considered a meteorite?�.
>Historically, the system of identification and registration of
>meteorites first presumes that a sample is either of terrestrial
>origin or artificial. To prevent the Committee on Meteorites from
>being transformed into the mining branch, they quickly sift out the
>�rubbish�, by searching for specific features defined by a system of
>identification that follows existing theories of the formation of
>the universe. Logically, the samples treated most skeptically are
>those submitted without genealogy, those that have no testimonial
>evidence of their fall or the point of impact.
>In the case of Shirokovsky, not only is the area of the fall
>identified, but the actual point of impact was accurately located in
>the frozen reservoir. During the course of our four search
>expeditions, an area at the bottom of the reservoir with a radius of
>100m centered beneath the identified point of impact was literally
>scrutinized with magnifying glasses and pincers. We found no other
>stones capable of leaving the iron-nickel traces that were found on
>the walls of the ice hole where the meteorite entered the reservoir
>in 1956. Nor was anything found by our rivals, the alternative
>divers� expedition from the city of Sverdlovsk. It is almost certain
>that what our divers lifted from the reservoir bottom is what fell
>from the sky, broke through the ice and left the iron nickel traces
>in 1956, simply because their was nothing else found on the
>reservoir bottom that could have left such traces.
>
>
>Testing of Shirokovsky
>
>Recent testing of Shirokovsky has indicated that Shirokovsky is on
>the terrestrial oxygen isotope fractionation line. Experts of the
>Kurchatov Institute have questioned the purity of this testing
>because the sample specimen was not properly prepared by means of
>laser ablation for the mass spectrometry. Before it was tested, the
>sample underwent thermal, chemical and other influences that may
>have led to substitution of oxygen in the olivine. At this stage,
>the Saint Petersburgian Scientific Research Institute will provide
>some aid with VSEGEI (noble gases, lead) and GIPCH (oxygen) testing
>under the direction of the Russian Academy of Science Precambrian
>Institute Research Laboratory of U. A. (Shukulukov and L. K.
>Levsky), where the samples are currently being prepared. We expect
>that the tests results will show either the shifting of isotopic
>ratio relative to the line of terrestrial rocks or they will ascribe
>the sample to the anomalous group - lunar, Martian, aubrita, etc -
>that contradicts the homogeneous picture of the origin of the
>terrestrial rocks.
>Radiogenic argon was found in the Shirokovsky specimens, although in
>smaller quantities than expected. We hope that the figures will be
>more in line after a properly prepared sample is tested at the
>above-mentioned institutions.
>
>
>Making a Meteorite
>
>When the test results, results from testing conducted on an
>improperly prepared Shirokovsky specimen, favored a terrestrial
>origin, some speculated that the specimen was an artificially
>produced �false meteorite� - similar to a product produced through
>blast furnace casting in the former USSR.
>In response to this speculation, we turned to the staff of different
>scientific and metallurgical institutions, questioning the
>possibility of using existing technologies to create an object with
>a composition similar to that of Shirokovsky. The metallurgists gave
>quite an irrefutable answer.
>Only three ways of forming metal are known:
>1. forging
>2. casting
>3. sintering (powder metallurgy)
>
>Forging:
>Forging, where metal is heated to a high temperature, then hammered
>into shape, is obviously out of the question.
>
>Casting
>Casting an object with a composition similar to that of Shirokovsky
>is possible only under zero gravity conditions, since Archimedean
>force would instantly eject the lighter minerals to the surface.
>
>Sintering (Powder Metallurgy)
>Sintering would allow minerals to disperse inside the mould. But no
>mould could cast a stone with surface protrusions that jut out at
>opposing angles. The extraction of the object from the mould would
>inevitably lead to its destruction. Moreover, the outside cavities
>of the mould would tend to fill with the smaller particles of powder
>instead of the larger mineral crystals. Shirokovsky has surface
>protrusions that jut out at opposing angles. These protrusions are
>filled with larger pieces of olivine and metallic matrix.
>
>
>What is Shirokovsky?
>
>Thus, in summary, Shirokovsky can be described as:
>�something found at the point of impact of a celestial body and
>something impossible to produce with methods currently known to
>science�.
>
>
>A. Alexeyevich
>Full Member of the Russian Geographical Society.
>Participant of the search expedition for the Ugleuralsky
>(Shirokovsky) meteorite.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Get 2 months FREE*.
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
