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
