Chris, Again, With all due respect. How can you say semantic tweaks don't matter? Semantics are everything. I know he asked about chondrites but they do vary in density. What if it is Iron vs, very low density like a CI1? What if it is huge vs. tiny? What if it is traveling at a super fast speed at a very steep angle? It seems TC3 came in at an angle that would argue that there would be very material little left. It also is a very porous and fragile material which would also lend itself to quick destruction entering our atmosphere. According to the show there was two different materials found. So, this meteoroid was made up of different materials which would contribute to break-up vs, holding itself together. Simple Examples here; as Sterling said without math. What if you put an iron meteorite into a rock tumbler. And then you put a CI1 into a similar rock tumbler. The amount of time it would require for these different rocks to end up as dust would be quite significant, wouldn't it? And given there is a very small time table for the ablation process to occur it seems obvious that the time spent in the ablation process alone would be sufficient to prove that the density of the meteoroid matters a lot. Secondly, The size of the material has a lot to do with ablation. Also based on time in ablation zone of the atmosphere. Using the same scenario, if you put say a marble size piece of meteorite along with a baseball size piece of the same meteorite. The marble size will have ablated to 100% dust far before the larger piece. Simple logic here. Please tell me how this example does not argue that it is in fact possible for a very high percentage of the material to survive. Lets say it's a mile wide iron traveling super fast at a 90 degree angle (which would get it through the ablation zone very quickly). It seems that it is very possible for most of it to survive. Based on your 99.9% guess. that would mean that Carancas would have entered our atmosphere the size of a small planet. We recovered aprox. 10 kilos and guesstimates are that most of it was lost to the crater. So, if you take whatever the guess is for the size that hit the ground and multiply it by 99.9% that means it would have been possibly miles wide. If it was I am surprised nobody saw it coming. Even with this highly studied event. The scientists are still arguing about the speed. One says it came in very fast while another says it came in very slow. Either way it seems to me the size estimate would also vary. So, isn't any estimate a mere guess at best? Thanks Carl -- Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax
---- Chris Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether a semantic tweak is required depends on how you look at the > question. If you are asking how much of a meteorite's parent body was lost, > there's no problem; it's never 100%. It is only in asking how much of a > meteoroid survives ablation that you have to deal with the fact that it's > usually 0%. > > Chris > > ***************************************** > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[email protected]> > To: "Richard Kowalski" <[email protected]>; "meteorite list" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:08 PM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] How much survives entry? > > > > There's a semantic tweak to whatever answer > > is given. We presume on good evidence that > > many meteoroids result in no meteorite at all > > reaching the Earth. That is our assumption, > > at any rate. In that case, the loss is... 100% > > ______________________________________________ > 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
