[meteorite-list] Sale: Big fresh piece OC 24kg
Hello List i have an big piece OC weigh 24kg for sale fresh with 90%crust plz contacte me off list if you are interested all the best -- Rachid Chaoui IMCA # 4157 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: Imilac Contributed by: Arlene Schlazer http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpod.asp __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] AD eBay auction ending - nice Taza, oriented NWA...
Dear List Members I have few auction ending tomorrow on eBay (with no reserve price). Nice oriented Taza 139g http://www.ebay.com/itm/190698593170?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_711wt_1399 Oriented NWA xxx chondrite 458g http://www.ebay.com/itm/190698594545?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_668wt_1399 Complete SAU 001 piece http://www.ebay.com/itm/190698595468?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_721wt_1399 And on Buy It now auction amazing IMILAC slice with transparent OL. http://www.ebay.com/itm/190690773577?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_711wt_1399 All auction can be seen on http://www.ebay.com/sch/meteoritepoland/m.html?item=190690773577sspagename=STRK%3AMESELX%3AITrt=nc_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649_trksid=p4340.l2562 Thanks for watching. All the best Tomasz Jakubowski IMCA #2321 Managing Editor http://meteorites.pwr.wroc.pl/ __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax
Interesting article, Phil. It's always good to see that given a little time, collaborative science works things out. Having a couple Biology degrees myself, I would have been floored if it had been verified that the bacteria substituted arsenic for phosporus in its DNA. It will be interesting to see if they determine in follow up studies what the actual mechanism is by which the bacteria mitigates the presence of the arsenic in its environment. As the article mentions, due to their relative simple makeup, some bacteria have the ability to adapt and survive in very inhospitable Earth enviroments. There have been some inklings of it (nanobacteria of Allan Hills 84001), but someday I think we will likely see broadly agreed upon hard evidence for them in many non-terrestrial environments. Best, Daniel Daniel Noyes Genuine Moon Mars Meteorite Rocks i...@moonmarsrocks.com www.moonmarsrocks.com -- Message: 6 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 00:06:11 -0400 From: JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: 63BF6FFBB51F40319F12E314B7334D5E@ET Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Turns out it was a bogus publicity stunt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?hpid=z3 Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper By Marc Kaufman, Updated: Sunday, July 8, 10:05 PMThe Washington Post Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in California's arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in some of its major findings. The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic and very low phosphorus - one of the six elements known to be present in all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a universal rule of biology. But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not grow without the presence of phosphorus. The ?papers also challenged the original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically central parts of the organism. Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive, the journal concluded in a formal statement. The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had interpreted her group's data. Nonetheless, Science wrote that it would look with interest at further research regarding the bacterium, which it called an extraordinarily resistant organism that should be of interest for further study, particularly related to arsenic-tolerance mechanisms. Wolfe-Simon, now on a NASA fellowship at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is collaborating with senior scientist John A. Tainer on wide-ranging studies of the bacterium. In an interview Saturday, Wolfe-Simon and Tainer said that they had produced tentative results in the Berkeley lab almost identical to the original results at a U.S. Geological Survey laboratory, and that they were busy finishing the research and preparing another paper. Tainer said the two new studies in Science may have come to different results than theirs because of the methodologies used, the precision used to detect arsenates and the provenance of the cells. He said the authors of the two new papers may well regret some of their statements in the future. There are many reasons not to find things - I don't find my keys some mornings, he said. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The absence of a finding is not definitive. Wolfe-Simon and her numerous collaborators had made samples of GFAJ-1 broadly available after her initial results caused a storm of controversy, but she and Tainer said they may have been contaminated or modified in transit. She said that all the researchers agreed that the bacterium survived in extraordinarily high levels of usually toxic arsenic compounds but that they disagreed about whether the organism used the arsenic compound to grow and whether it had incorporated the arsenic into its biology. I think it's unclear whether this is the last word, ?Wolfe-Simon said. They're not finding something that could be there in a minor amount. One of the new studies in Science was conducted by a team centered at Princeton University that included Rosemary Redfield of the University of British Columbia. She was one of the first and most vocal critics of the original Wolfe-Simon paper, and she said Sunday she was
[meteorite-list] HERITAGE METEORITE AUCTION - FINAL CALL FOR CONSIGNMENTS
Hi Everyone, This October 14th at the Fletcher Sinclair Mansion in New York City a rather fantastic meteorite auction will be hosted by Heritage Auctions---the world's premier collectibles auctioneer. While the auction is pretty much complete, I am still interested in historic meteorites with associated collateral (e.g., historic documents, correspondence, catalog cards) or just plain interesting objects associated with the subject we love---the older the better. If you have something remarkable which you would like to sell---with an attractive reserve---please let me know off list. This is the last call for what I guarantee will be a memorable event. All the best / Darryl __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
Good evening list. I was talking to BOB HAAG today and we were talking about the latest meteorite falls this year and I asked bob,when was the last iron meteorite fall. He said it was probably the sikhote-alin iron meteorite fall of 1947. Can this be true? Someone with vast knowledge of this would be a tremendous help. Thanks and have a great evening. -- Steve R. Anold, chicago, ill. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
Steve... Sterlitamak, Russia May 17, 1990 IIIAB iron http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Metic..27R.276P clear skies, Kelly J. Kelly Beatty Senior Contributing Editor SKY TELESCOPE 617-416-9991 SkyandTelescope.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
Steve, Kelly, No vast knowledge but the Met Bull lists 13 falls of irons since Sikhote-Alin. Two after Sterlitamak(Ban Rong Du in Thailand and Kavarpura in India). Would love to have a specimen of any one of the 13. Is anyone selling?? Jim B - Original Message - From: Kelly Beatty jkellybea...@comcast.net To: steve arnold chicagosteve1...@gmail.com, meteorite-list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 3:44:31 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall Steve... Sterlitamak, Russia May 17, 1990 IIIAB iron http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Metic..27R.276P clear skies, Kelly J. Kelly Beatty Senior Contributing Editor SKY TELESCOPE 617-416-9991 SkyandTelescope.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=sfor=namesants=falls=yesvalids=stype=containslrec=50map=gebrowse=country=Allsrt=yearcateg=Iron+meteoritesmblist=Allrect=phot=snew=0pnt=Normal%20tablecode=47351 ;) I think however that you are pulling my leg cause all you need is to enter the right parameters at the met bul: Check Falls, Chose Iron meteorites, Order by Date press Search! http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php On 09-07-2012 23:35, steve arnold wrote: Good evening list. I was talking to BOB HAAG today and we were talking about the latest meteorite falls this year and I asked bob,when was the last iron meteorite fall. He said it was probably the sikhote-alin iron meteorite fall of 1947. Can this be true? Someone with vast knowledge of this would be a tremendous help. Thanks and have a great evening. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
Hi, I would love to find some Sterlitamak for my collection. Anyone have some? Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Beatty Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 6:45 PM To: 'steve arnold'; 'meteorite-list' Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall Steve... Sterlitamak, Russia May 17, 1990 IIIAB iron http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Metic..27R.276P clear skies, Kelly J. Kelly Beatty Senior Contributing Editor SKY TELESCOPE 617-416-9991 SkyandTelescope.com __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] the last iron meteorite fall
Hi Steve, August 14th, 1962 Bogou was witnessed to fall. Its a course octahedrite. Brandon D. steve arnold chicagosteve1...@gmail.com wrote: Good evening list. I was talking to BOB HAAG today and we were talking about the latest meteorite falls this year and I asked bob,when was the last iron meteorite fall. He said it was probably the sikhote-alin iron meteorite fall of 1947. Can this be true? Someone with vast knowledge of this would be a tremendous help. Thanks and have a great evening. -- Steve R. Anold, chicago, ill. __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax
This current news story is as unfortunate as the original NASA story spin of Wolf-Simon's article release two years ago. Hoax implies a deliberate fabrication of evidence. There's no call here to insult the personal integrity of the scientists for publishing their earlier experimental observations on the Mono Lake arsenic tolerant bacteria. Also never concluded in the original experiments would be that arsenate could completely replace phophate, just that it might have been substituted for less than one percent of phosphorus at a cost. They weren't looking for any kind of attention themselves to create this a publicity stunt. Just over zealot news media spun into action by an interesting preliminary report. Looking forward to reading the actual article when available and new studies to follow. From: JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 9:06 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax Turns out it was a bogus publicity stunt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?hpid=z3 Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper By Marc Kaufman, Updated: Sunday, July 8, 10:05 PMThe Washington Post Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in California's arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in some of its major findings. The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic and very low phosphorus - one of the six elements known to be present in all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a universal rule of biology. But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically central parts of the organism. Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive, the journal concluded in a formal statement. The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had interpreted her group's data. Nonetheless, Science wrote that it would look with interest at further research regarding the bacterium, which it called an extraordinarily resistant organism that should be of interest for further study, particularly related to arsenic-tolerance mechanisms. Wolfe-Simon, now on a NASA fellowship at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is collaborating with senior scientist John A. Tainer on wide-ranging studies of the bacterium. In an interview Saturday, Wolfe-Simon and Tainer said that they had produced tentative results in the Berkeley lab almost identical to the original results at a U.S. Geological Survey laboratory, and that they were busy finishing the research and preparing another paper. Tainer said the two new studies in Science may have come to different results than theirs because of the methodologies used, the precision used to detect arsenates and the provenance of the cells. He said the authors of the two new papers may well regret some of their statements in the future. There are many reasons not to find things - I don't find my keys some mornings, he said. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The absence of a finding is not definitive. Wolfe-Simon and her numerous collaborators had made samples of GFAJ-1 broadly available after her initial results caused a storm of controversy, but she and Tainer said they may have been contaminated or modified in transit. She said that all the researchers agreed that the bacterium survived in extraordinarily high levels of usually toxic arsenic compounds but that they disagreed about whether the organism used the arsenic compound to grow and whether it had incorporated the arsenic into its biology. I think it's unclear whether this is the last word, Wolfe-Simon said. They're not finding something that could be there in a minor amount. One of the new studies in Science was conducted by a team centered at Princeton University that included Rosemary Redfield of the University of British Columbia. She was one of the first and most vocal critics of the original Wolfe-Simon paper, and she said Sunday she was satisfied with how the process has played out. A very flawed paper was published and received an inordinate amount of publicity, she wrote in an e-mail. But other researchers responded very quickly. .?.?. Now refutations of the work by
Re: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax
Hi List, below, a (non-meteoritic) arsenic story related to water and gold in Alleghany, CA at the original Sixteen to One Mine is summarized by me belowif anyone is interested please contact me off-list for more info and stuff BRIEFLY: all ambient water arsenic ppms upstream from OAu have arsenopyrite origin, indiginous to the fault-zone geology, as well as within and belowpolitical opportunists point to Original Sixteen to One (hard-rock metal-detection extraction only) for the ambient levels above EPA standards, disregarding natural and historic deposit levels, and for the last 10 years the battle here has been waged with no regard to true science. Crap litigation, instead, has impeded. Check www.origsix.com or contact me. Richard Montgomery - Original Message - From: Howard Wu freewu2...@yahoo.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax This current news story is as unfortunate as the original NASA story spin of Wolf-Simon's article release two years ago. Hoax implies a deliberate fabrication of evidence. There's no call here to insult the personal integrity of the scientists for publishing their earlier experimental observations on the Mono Lake arsenic tolerant bacteria. Also never concluded in the original experiments would be that arsenate could completely replace phophate, just that it might have been substituted for less than one percent of phosphorus at a cost. They weren't looking for any kind of attention themselves to create this a publicity stunt. Just over zealot news media spun into action by an interesting preliminary report. Looking forward to reading the actual article when available and new studies to follow. From: JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 9:06 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax Turns out it was a bogus publicity stunt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?hpid=z3 Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper By Marc Kaufman, Updated: Sunday, July 8, 10:05 PMThe Washington Post Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in California's arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in some of its major findings. The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic and very low phosphorus - one of the six elements known to be present in all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a universal rule of biology. But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically central parts of the organism. Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive, the journal concluded in a formal statement. The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had interpreted her group's data. Nonetheless, Science wrote that it would look with interest at further research regarding the bacterium, which it called an extraordinarily resistant organism that should be of interest for further study, particularly related to arsenic-tolerance mechanisms. Wolfe-Simon, now on a NASA fellowship at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is collaborating with senior scientist John A. Tainer on wide-ranging studies of the bacterium. In an interview Saturday, Wolfe-Simon and Tainer said that they had produced tentative results in the Berkeley lab almost identical to the original results at a U.S. Geological Survey laboratory, and that they were busy finishing the research and preparing another paper. Tainer said the two new studies in Science may have come to different results than theirs because of the methodologies used, the precision used to detect arsenates and the provenance of the cells. He said the authors of the two new papers may well regret some of their statements in the future. There are many reasons not to find things - I don't find my keys some mornings, he said. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The absence of a finding is not definitive. Wolfe-Simon and her numerous collaborators had made samples of GFAJ-1 broadly available after her initial results caused a storm of controversy, but she and Tainer said they may
[meteorite-list] Arsenic Bacteria Hoax
This current news story is as unfortunate as the original NASA story spin of Wolf-Simon's article release two years ago. Hoax implies a deliberate fabrication of evidence. There's no call here to insult the personal integrity of the scientists for publishing their earlier experimental observations on the Mono Lake arsenic tolerant bacteria. Also never concluded in the original experiments would be that arsenate could completely replace phophate, just that it might have been substituted for less than one percent of phosphorus at a cost. They weren't looking for any kind of attention themselves to create this a publicity stunt. Just over zealot news media spun into action by an interesting preliminary report. Looking forward to reading the actual article when available and new studies to follow. Howard, You're right, calling it a hoax may have been overstating my opinion. But it was definitely a publicity stunt. If you claim to have discovered a completely new life form, unknown to science and possibly of alien origin, it's just good manners to wait until it's independently confirmed. They jumped the gun with their premature announcement. As if they didn't know that it would create a lot of hoopla and possibly mislead a lot of people! I don't know what their exact motives were, but announcing that you've found a living DNA chain with arsenic replacing phosphorus compounds before it's been confirmed seems a little hoaxy to me. I'm no scientist, but I'm still annoyed by that whole cold fusion thing. Phil Whitmer Joshua Tree Earth Space Museum __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Sterlitamak
Ok I read the link to the Sterlitamak meteorite and a couple other write ups on it but can't locate the width of the crater. I see all the other measurements but missed the crater width. Does anybody know the answer? -Paul G __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Sterlitamak
Paul, List, You're right; the Sterlitamak crater is an odd case. It is neither exactly a crater nor merely an impact pit, but is intermediate between the two forms:: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AVest..26...82P The Sterlitamak crater, is 9.4 meters and was formed on May 17, 1990 by a one-ton iron object. While every impact differs from others, a description of that crater is of interest: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Metic..27R.276P Quote: The Sterlitamak meteorite fell on May 17, 1990 at 23h20m local time (17h20m GMT) and formed a crater in a field 20 km westward of the town of Sterlitamak (Petaev et al., 1991). Many witnesses in South Bashkiria saw a very bright fireball (up to -5 magnitude) moving from south to north at a ~45 degree angle to the horizon. Witnesses located ~2 km from the crater observed the fireball glowing right up to the time of impact, after which several explosions were heard. The crater was found on May 19. From witnesses' reports, the fresh crater was 4.5-5 m in depth and had sheer walls ~3 m in height below which was a conical talus surface with a hole in the center. The crater itself was surrounded by a continuous rim 60-70 cm in thickness and by radial ejecta. Our field team arrived at the crater on May 23, six days after its formation. We found the crater in rather good condition except for partial collapse of the rim, material from which had filled in the crater up to ~3 m from the surface. The western wall of the crater was composed of well-preserved brown loam with shale- like parting dipping 25-30 degrees away from the crater center. A large slip block of autogenic breccia was observed along the eastern crater wall. An allogenic breccia composed of a mixture of brown loam and black soil was traced to the depth of ~5 m from the surface. Outside the rim, the crater ejecta formed an asymmetric continuous blanket and distinct radial rays. The southern rays were shorter and thicker than the northern and eastern rays. About 2 dozen meteorite fragments, from several grams to several hundred grams in weight, were recovered in the crater vicinity. A search for other meteorite fragments or individuals at distances up to 1 km southward from the crater was unsuccessful. Two partly encrusted fragments (3 and 6 kg) with clear Widmanstatten pattern on a broken surface were found at a depth of ~8 m during crater excavation. In May of 1991 a 315-kg partly fragmented individual was recovered at a depth of ~12 m. This sample is a 50 x 45 x 28 cm block with front, rear and two adjoining lateral surfaces covered by regmaglypts and thick (~0.5 mm) fusion crust. The other two surfaces are very rough, contain no regmaglypts, and have a thinner fusion crust. The preimpact shape of the meteorite may be approximately modeled as a slab ~100 x 100 x 28 cm. An estimate of the projectile mass was made based on the crater dimensions. From the relationships between crater diameter and projectile mass determined for the Sikhote-Alin craters, the impact mass of the Sterlitamak meteorite is estimated at ~1 ton (Petaev, 1992). A separate estimate, based on cratering energy, yields a total mass of ~1.5 tons (Ivanov, Petaev, 1992). A comparison of the estimated projectile mass and the weight and morphology of the individual recovered suggests a fragmentation of the projectile in the atmosphere and the formation of the crater by the impact of an agglomeration of individuals. The other fragments of the projectile are still in the crater. http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm Observers claim that the fireball actually hit the ground. Impact velocity was estimated to be over 2 km/s and impact force was equal to 1 ton of TNT. Meteorite made 9.4 meter wide and 3 meter deep crater into a potato field. Impact (shockwave of falling meteorite) destroyed potatos in a area of 100 meter in radius. A 300 kg meteorite was recovered from 15 meter below surface and it is estimated that there should be at least one ton more meteorite but deeper in the ground. It buried itself! Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Paul Gessler cetu...@shaw.ca To: meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Sterlitamak Ok I read the link to the Sterlitamak meteorite and a couple other write ups on it but can't locate the width of the crater. I see all the other measurements but missed the crater width. Does anybody know the answer? -Paul G __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list
