[meteorite-list] New Iron (Ataxite) SHRAPNEL

[Steve Schoner]

That would be a great find as a new ataxite (low nickel) with an impact crater.   But until the analysis is in I have my doubts as the shrapnel part has me wondering...   

This area of the desert was most probably flown over by bombers back in WWII.  Could that hole be the product of a bomb that was dropped?  Bombers often unloaded hung up bombs in odd locations.

At any rate if I were searching any area close to a WWII battlefield it would be wise to keep that in mind, as any unexploded ammo or even mines might still be active.

Would not want any to be the last casualty of WWII.

Steve Schoner
www.petroslides.com
IMCA #4470 

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:04:49 -0400
From: Mexicodoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Iron (Ataxite) SHRAPNEL
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Message-ID: <8CCE0441CEA650F-9DC-529B at webmail-m092.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed

Hi Svend, List,

"Zooming out the sat-image, one notes that the general wind direction 
in the area
is north by northeast to south to southwest. Thus, any Aeolian 
deflation or wind
shaped sedimentation pattern around the crater would have to be 
oriented along
this axis. This appears not to be case. Instead we see a radial pattern 
with the
crater as its center."

Svend has described poetry in motion; I am going to save his 
description for reruns with a cup of coffee and savour the detailed 
analysis, perhaps when life is at a kind moment and I am out in the 
desert observing the night sky and inventing my own constellations for 
family members.

The impact rays are probably already covered quite well, but if it is 
not clear, let me try to add this:

We have a central source of material and under Richard's hypothesis, 
wind blowing down points on the rim to form these "rays". We look at 
the rays and the first thing we notice is that they are as quite well 
defined. Svend's comments about the character of the prevailing wind 
direction, pavement and bedrock aside, let's try the strategy of proof 
by contradiction strictly under Richard's hypothesis:

Suppose this is a sandy or powdery place where the wind can blow out 
spokes from the sand source(hole, crater, pit, whatever). Looking at 
the rays from all directions we are forced to reason that the wind must 
be blowing from all those directions or else we wouldn't have a hub and 
spoke design around the crater.

But ... if the wind is blowing sand and powder spokes from all 
directions, why would the spokes be linear, nearly as well formed 
distally as near the crater? Because wind from all the directions of 
the compass would cause a scattering proportional to the distance from 
the crater, perhaps curves if it was a windstorm from another 
direction, and not a sharp delineation towards the ends of the rays 
like a bicycle wheel. The absence of this is a contradiction ... the 
backbones of the rays are too straight and well defined to support 
Richard's idea. A much simpler explanation is that someone painted them 
on a something solid ground - who better than Mother nature responding 
to the impact?

Kindest wishes Svend, and Richard, thanks
Doug




____________________________________________________________
Refinance Now 4.0% FIXED!
$160,000 Mortgage for $633/mo. Free. No Obligation. Get 4 Quotes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/4c221695111c213e178st03duc