[meteorite-list] Further thoughts

[Chris Peterson]

I don't think that fireballs explode that way. What happens is that 
pressure builds up until the material strength of the meteoroid is 
exceeded, and it fragments. There isn't an explosion as such (the 
appearance of an explosion is largely the result of energy released when 
lots of additional surface is suddenly exposed to ablation). The 
fragmented components continue traveling forward with approximately 
equal velocities. There's little lateral movement, and nothing ends up 
traveling in the opposite direction.

In the case of a single terminal explosion, the shape and direction of 
the strewn field may have more to do with upper atmosphere winds than 
with the original direction of the meteor, or with the dynamics of the 
breakup.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Shugar" <pshugar at clearwire.net>
To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Further thoughts


> Consider the Fireball.
> When the (soon to be) meteorite explodes into a fireball, the pieces 
> are blown in every direction, Those blown in the direction
> that the meteor came from which should give them a negative speed and 
> as such will start to drop first. Those in the direction of travel 
> give the furtherest reach from the above mentioned  pieces. This will 
> define the outside distance of the strewnfield.
> Some will be blown up and some will be blown down. I would suspect 
> that those that are blown downward would be the first to reach ground 
> as these will be accelarated and those that are blown upward must go 
> up before they can come down, so they should be the last to reach the 
> ground.
> This means that the middle of the strewnfield is the first to be 
> populated as well as the last to be populated. The two ends fill up in 
> between the first and last parts of the fall.
> Anyone care to check?
> I don't think I missed anything, but I'm not an EXPERT, just using 
> deductive reasoning.
> Pete