Hi Friends and Listees,
Just a few more comments on why this Schultz theory is refreshing IMO,
as crazy as it initially sounded:
If this mechanism is a valid one for larger objects, it raises the
following curiosities:
1. Why don't other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton do the same
thing.
2. How many fair comparisons do we have in recorded meteoritidum that
are comparable, e.g. non-carbonaceous big falls which are slowed by the
atmosphere.
3. If this is a valid posibility, are our thought about "destroying"
killer asteroids by fragmenting them in even hotter water? e.g., what
if 10% of the fragments, to pick any fraction for argument's sake,
exhibit this behavior. We can't count on the atmosphere to be the
guardian angel for all pieces!
4. What happens to the fragmented material at the front of the
enveloped train of hurdling debris? Does it fragment and basically
vaporize (get smoked) and in so doing, open up a path for what's behind?
5. And if some pieces at the front survive, the friction will slow them
down - then BOOM collision with those behind - and could we have an
cyclical relay team progression of renewal of momentum at the head of
the train maintaining the overall velocity?
6. If this "rely team" mechanism is maintained by a long and massive
particle stream behind, is this effect possible: The actual shear at
the front is lowered substantially for the overall velocity, basically
using a sacrificial leading edge as a re-entry heat shield.
Not agreeing with the mechanism - nor disagreeing, just brainstorming a
bit. No doubt this was really smoking, does the energy disippated into
making the smoke serve as a shield - amazing concept...
Best wishes and Great Health,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:26 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
Sterling W. wrote:
"Both Schultz and I calculate that the object was still supersonic when
it hit, still enclosed in a "detached" shock wave, so the sides never
ablated at any point."
Hi Sterling,
Yes, but to Schultz's credit, he has put a novel mechanism on the table
for scientific consideration of these "strange" dynamics and motivated
the issue of the role of the shock wave IMO to begin with. The oriented
case as presented by you and many others at that time was an
extrapolation IMO.
I personally like Schultz' refreshing contribution in the field. I
would rather call your thoughts the natural control for Schultz' idea,
and not anything particularly novel in meteoritical circles. While any
idea will need to be earthshattering :-), which explanation (the basic
made into a very special case or the spontaneous reorganization and its
complexity - or csome combination of ideas) at this point best complies
with Occam's Razor is not obvious to me.
However, no matter how distorted in length vs. width, if we consider
the object was over a ton, that is still a real lot of surface area to
survive down to a relatively very thick atmosphere at 4 km above sea
level at that speed. I don't think the shock wave could have powered
any deflector shields at the front of the bus - but I'm not qualitfied
at the moment to comment on that. The shear experienced by the material
at the front had to be enormous in the last 5-10 kilometers.
So this Schultz theory sounds good and a welcomed addition to
consideration vs. the highly oriented case.
Sterling - do you or does anyone know if the shock veins have been
shown by the scientists to have been caused upon impact with Earth?
Best wishes and Great Health,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 1:23 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
Hi,
In this context "contained" means contained by the back
pressure envelope of the shock wave. The meteoric material
would be far enough away from the shock not be heated
very much. The shock wave at the sides is the hot stuff
from the front and it's cooling down rapidly.
Even in the entry of a spherical object the back side is
not ablated. The melted rock on the back is running fluid
from the front, not backside material that melted. And there's
many a fine crusty meteorite whose back side is hardly touched
by melt even though it's only a few inches away from the fire
of re-entry.
The shock wave is the boundary between material moving
faster than sound (traveling with the meteoroid) and material
not moving faster than sound (the surrounding atmosphere).
Check the Wikipedia entry (very good discussion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave
"Shock waves are characterized by an abrupt, nearly
discontinuous change in the characteristics of the medium.
Across a shock there is always an extremely rapid rise in
pressure, temperature and density of the flow."
In other words, just a little too close and you're dead
meat! Just an inch away, you're OK. The faster an object
goes, the more sharply bent back the shock wave is; as it
slows, the shock wave stands out further away, until at
the speed of sound it's at right angles to the direction of
flight. As long as the sides of object are on the "right" side
of the fiery shock wave, it's safe from being melted at least.
It's like being the heat shadow.
Both Schultz and I calculate that the object was still
supersonic when it hit, still enclosed in a "detached"
shock wave, so the sides never ablated at any point.
Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
It would seem to me that if the stone fragmented in flight and was
contained
by the shock wave it would still be heated by the plasma and all the
fragments would develop crusts. There appear to be some pieces with
crust,
but enought to match Schultz's theory?
---- "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Schultz and I both agree that a greater aerodynamic
efficiency will get a chondrite to the ground faster with
less loss of material, making an impact like Carancas
possible.
What Schultz proposes is that the fragile material of
Carancas fragmented early on but did not "pancake" out
and cause an airburst, but was wrapped by the shock wave
around the hypersonic meteoroid into a "bullet" shape
that stayed together and kept its high speed to the ground.
.... What I proposed was that the Carancas impactor was an
elongated fragment to begin with. That is, it was a "sliver" of
asteroid that was 4 or 5 times longer than its width when it
entered the Earth's atmosphere. The results would be the
same: a faster trip to the ground in (mostly) one piece.
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
