[meteorite-list] Fwd: New, long, Carancas article II

Sat Apr 5 13:26:03 EDT 2008

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: mexicodoug at aim.com
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
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 <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> 
To: star-bits at tx.rr.com 
Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; meteoriteguy at yahoo.com 
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: <star-bits at tx.rr.com> 
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> 
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com> 
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" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> 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 
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com 
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 

______________________________________________ 
http://www.meteoritecentral.com 
Meteorite-list mailing list 
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com 
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 