Agreed Charles ...Something doesnt add upUmmm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
standing byToday is the day they are supposed to be trying to remove the fragment, so there should be some news soon.
Agreed Charles ...Something doesnt add upUmmm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
standing byToday is the day they are supposed to be trying to remove the fragment, so there should be some news soon.
comment/response from linkPublished time: October 03, 2013 11:33
---------“It’s like the little green men don’t want us Earthlings to get the celestial body,” Maksim Shipulin, one of the divers, commented to Rossiyskaya Gazeta. “We thought we’d be able to get the big meteorite from the depth of 14 meters, but it’s being sucked in deeper, and we are now talking about 16 to 20 meters.”------------
http://rt.com/news/russian-meteorite-lift-lake-679/
Tony Forsyth 05.10.2013 20:35
Not trying to be cynical but this whole story sounds like a PR beatup and doesn't sound true. Sucked down to 20 metres? Maybe it will suck down so far as to be not recovered, but make a good TV story anyway while they talk about it.
Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
That area may contain a quick condition..but it’s being sucked in deeper,
But a ton of other crap just sat there?Sparky wrote:Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?That area may contain a quick condition..but it’s being sucked in deeper,
While the biggest prize so far eluded the divers, they have found eight smaller fragments of the meteorite, the biggest one weighing just under 5kg, which is currently the largest fragment of the Chelyabinsk meteorite found. Their other catch includes plenty of garbage and a large number of magnets – the remainder of the winter enthusiastic hunt for smaller meteorite fragments by various entrepreneurs.
My guess is that the smaller fragments will be showing up on e-bay soon, while the larger fragments will be going into private collections. And the London-based marketing firm that is managing this told the divers to not find the big one yet -- it will go for a lot more money at auction if they have to dig really deep for it. Are any of these things actually from the meteorite? Here's the marketing plan: buy a boulder cheap, and if you can get a scientist to certify that it's a meteorite, it will instantly double in value. If not, carve it up into pieces, give them names, and sell them as pet rocks. And where did the Ruskies learn such free market tactics? From us!While the biggest prize so far eluded the divers, they have found eight smaller fragments of the meteorite, the biggest one weighing just under 5kg, which is currently the largest fragment of the Chelyabinsk meteorite found.
Because, when it landed in the water it was hot, very hot, and it boiled he water around it for a long time as it cooled, probably several minutes for the smaller pieces and perhaps hours for very large ones. The steam propelled boiling water out from under the hot chunks of meteorite and the hot water carried sediment with it, blowing an ever deeper hole as long as the boiling continued. The sediment probably didn’t rise very far above the chunks before the boiling water cooled as it mingled with the lake water and the dirt settled back down and buried the pieces as they cooled. .CharlesChandler wrote:Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?According to scientists, the huge chunk, weighting hundreds of metric tons, is buried under a 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) layer of silt.
And I agree with Gary about the hole in the ice. The high-velocity impact of a meteorite "weighing several hundreds of metric tons" would have created waves that would have fractured the ice across the entire lake.
This sounds like a science funding scam to me.
The piece recovered so far looks to me, from as much as can be determined from the image, to have been formed by EM processes from the sediment of the lake bed. Mechanically, a meteorite travelling at probably around 1000 Km/hr, and being hot, would have shattered to little pieces on hitting the water. At those speeds it may as well be concrete that is being hit, the water would not just part and let the object through.Ummm, how did the "meteorite" get buried under 2.5 meters of silt?
Crumbled? It survived a high speed impact with ice and water, but crumbled when they lifted it out? Doesn't sound right to me. I look forward to scientific analysis.The rock crumbled into several chunks as scientists began lifting it from the ground with the help of levers and ropes.
I am not saying that this is NOT a chunk of the meteor that fell earlier this year in Russia, but is it possible that it NOT from that event?GaryN wrote:This site is covering the removal process:
Probable Fragments of Chelyabinsk Meteorite Lifted From Lake
http://en.rian.ru/science/20130926/1837 ... -Lake.html
There is probably a better thread to post this, but I have nothing else to add, and I'd rather watch some vids.Only four minerals - plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite - account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.
Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have Only four minerals - plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite - account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.
Some of the most common minerals at the surface of the Earth are rare or have never been found in lunar samples. These include quartz, calcite, magnetite, hematite, micas, amphiboles, and most sulfide minerals. Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have
Encouraging not to get panned anyway, like I usually do with such questions!Meteorites hit the ground at terminal velocity, 100-200 mph. All meteorites that we have impacted at that speed.
I have never heard anyone else suggest that electrical discharge was involved with forming meteorites. Interesting idea.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests