[meteorite-list] Shirokovsky

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:37 2004
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030612125013.0335de98_at_gsvaresm02.er.usgs.gov>

Dear list and Ms. Kallis,

Let me reiterate the statements we made.

"The petrology and geochemistry of this object strongly suggest that it has
a terrestrial
origin." (http://meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/shirokovsky.pdf)

and, in my email to the list on 2 June 2003:

"There is at present no evidence other than the recovery story to suggest
that this is a meteorite. Mineralogy, chemistry, oxygen isotopes, and
noble gases all favor a terrestrial origin. "

Nothing in Laurie Kallis' email contradicts these statements. At present,
there is only weak, circumstantial evidence that this may be meteorite. If
any direct scientific evidence of a meteoritic origin turns up in future
studies, we would immediately supersede the statement on the NomCom web
site, and grant a meteorite name. Similarly, if an airtight, scientific
case can be made for a terrestrial origin, we would formally discredit
it. For now, we stand by our official statement of healthy skepticism.

-jeff

At 12:38 PM 6/12/2003, Adam Hupe wrote:
>Dear Laurie and List Members,
>
>You are asking us to believe that the investigative team assembled by the
>Nomenclature Committee is in error? This team employed some of the best
>scientists in the world including the president of the Mineralogical
>Society. Carnegie Laboratory in Washington D.C. has some of the most up to
>date equipment in the world for testing oxygen-isotopes. Of course they
>prepared the samples properly and used Laser fluorination. They usually
>prepare several samples, not just one. They also constantly monitor the
>error on the equipment and can tell the error exactly on each run, usually
>less than 1%. The other institutions mentioned on the official Nom Com
>report regarding Shirokovsky employed scientist with decades of experience
>in the study of meteoritics.
>
>There was not a single test in all the labs involved that showed this object
>to be a meteorite. I think it is time to start issuing refunds instead of
>pointing fingers at prestigious institutions and if by some miracle it is
>accepted as a meteorite in the future then sell some of it.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Laurie Kallis" <lauriekallis_at_hotmail.com>
>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:38 AM
>Subject: [meteorite-list] Shirokovsky
>
>
> > First, let me apologize for the length of this posting.
> >
> > We have been involved with the distribution of Shirokovsky Meteorite since
> > family made the recovery last year. Shirokovskymeteorite.com is our
>website.
> > Since questions of the meteorite's authenticity were raised we have
> > refrained from making sales and have added a clause to that effect to our
> > webiste.
> > One of the members of the Russian group who made the recovery has written
>in
> > response to the the questions of authenticity and the accusations. We have
> > translated his response and pasted it into the body of this email. This
> > same article will soon be added to the website.
> >
> > Specimens, properly prepared specimens, are currently being retested in
>St.
> > Petersburg.
> >
> > Until then........
> >
> >
> > So,what on Earth is it?
> > Search Expeditions for the Ugleuralsky (Shirokovsky) Meteorite: 2000-2003
> > What distinguished the search expeditions then known as the "Ugleuralsky"
> > meteorite expeditions from other contemporary meteoritic expeditions was
> > their official tone: the preparation under the auspices of the Russian
> > Geographical Society and the involvement of mass media. Thirty people, not
> > counting the local volunteers and Shirokovsky Power Station staff,
> > participated in the four search expeditions that took place between 2000
>and
> > 2003.
> > First hand witnesses of the meteorite fall who still live in the
>Shirokovsky
> > village, those who came to the hole in the ice after experiencing the
>flash
> > of light and the sound effect in 1956, were thoroughly questioned. Their
> > recollections of the location of the point of impact coincided with the
> > topographic tyings to the terrain reported by the USSR Sverdlovsk Academy
>of
> > Science expedition carried out in 1956, immediately after the fall.
> > A detailed relief map of the reservoir bottom supplied by the board of the
> > Shirokovsky Power Station, in concordance with the opinions of specialists
> > in ballistics, determined the extent of the search area.
> > The search proved more difficult than expected because constant removal of
> > sunken timber logs from the reservoir bottom over the years had dispersed
> > the meteorite fragments over a much larger area than was originally
> > anticipated. Eventually, with the help of a metal detector, our group
> > recovered approximately 150 kg of samples.
> >
> >
> > Encountering Difficulties
> >
> > The friendliness shown by the local population was inversely proportional
>to
> > the growing awareness of the potential value of the possible find. A
> > representative of the local 'Family', paid us a visit by jeep, showing a
> > great but vaguely formulated interest in our diving activities.
> > After our diving group departed in late spring, scientists from the city
>of
> > Sverdlovsk, led by professor Grokhovsky, arrived with their own group of
> > divers who risked their lives on weakened ice that had developed cracks
>and
> > was no longer safe to walk on in the hope of locating any meteoritic
> > substance missed by our group.
> > We appealed to the Committee for Meteorites at the Vernadsky Institute to
> > have samples of the Shirokovsky specimens tested. Our appeal was rejected
>on
> > the grounds that they had no information about the Ugleuralsky meteorite
> > fall, despite a number of scientific and media reports dating back to
>1956.
> > Sampling services and subsequent registration were offered by enthusiast
>A.
> > Milanovsky (http://meteorites.narod.ru), but our group was not looking for
> > easy ways. We planned to have the Shirokovsky samples tested and
>registered
> > as a meteorite in another country. We sent a representative to the Girorne
> > Meteoritic Fair in Germany where he met people from the same CMET who
> > originally rejected our appeal to have the samples tested. This time, they
> > convinced our representative that it would be patriotic to carry out the
> > research and register the meteorite in Russia.
> >
> >
> > Defining a Meteorite
> >
> > Further developments in our quest to have Shirokovsky registered as a
> > meteorite can serve as a precedent for future discussions on the topic
>'what
> > should be considered a meteorite?'.
> > Historically, the system of identification and registration of meteorites
> > first presumes that a sample is either of terrestrial origin or
>artificial.
> > To prevent the Committee on Meteorites from being transformed into the
> > mining branch, they quickly sift out the 'rubbish', by searching for
> > specific features defined by a system of identification that follows
> > existing theories of the formation of the universe. Logically, the samples
> > treated most skeptically are those submitted without genealogy, those that
> > have no testimonial evidence of their fall or the point of impact.
> > In the case of Shirokovsky, not only is the area of the fall identified,
>but
> > the actual point of impact was accurately located in the frozen reservoir.
> > During the course of our four search expeditions, an area at the bottom of
> > the reservoir with a radius of 100m centered beneath the identified point
>of
> > impact was literally scrutinized with magnifying glasses and pincers. We
> > found no other stones capable of leaving the iron-nickel traces that were
> > found on the walls of the ice hole where the meteorite entered the
>reservoir
> > in 1956. Nor was anything found by our rivals, the alternative divers'
> > expedition from the city of Sverdlovsk. It is almost certain that what our
> > divers lifted from the reservoir bottom is what fell from the sky, broke
> > through the ice and left the iron nickel traces in 1956, simply because
> > their was nothing else found on the reservoir bottom that could have left
> > such traces.
> >
> >
> > Testing of Shirokovsky
> >
> > Recent testing of Shirokovsky has indicated that Shirokovsky is on the
> > terrestrial oxygen isotope fractionation line. Experts of the Kurchatov
> > Institute have questioned the purity of this testing because the sample
> > specimen was not properly prepared by means of laser ablation for the mass
> > spectrometry. Before it was tested, the sample underwent thermal, chemical
> > and other influences that may have led to substitution of oxygen in the
> > olivine. At this stage, the Saint Petersburgian Scientific Research
> > Institute will provide some aid with VSEGEI (noble gases, lead) and GIPCH
> > (oxygen) testing under the direction of the Russian Academy of Science
> > Precambrian Institute Research Laboratory of U. A. (Shukulukov and L. K.
> > Levsky), where the samples are currently being prepared. We expect that
>the
> > tests results will show either the shifting of isotopic ratio relative to
> > the line of terrestrial rocks or they will ascribe the sample to the
> > anomalous group - lunar, Martian, aubrita, etc - that contradicts the
> > homogeneous picture of the origin of the terrestrial rocks.
> > Radiogenic argon was found in the Shirokovsky specimens, although in
>smaller
> > quantities than expected. We hope that the figures will be more in line
> > after a properly prepared sample is tested at the above-mentioned
> > institutions.
> >
> >
> > Making a Meteorite
> >
> > When the test results, results from testing conducted on an improperly
> > prepared Shirokovsky specimen, favored a terrestrial origin, some
>speculated
> > that the specimen was an artificially produced 'false meteorite' - similar
> > to a product produced through blast furnace casting in the former USSR.
> > In response to this speculation, we turned to the staff of different
> > scientific and metallurgical institutions, questioning the possibility of
> > using existing technologies to create an object with a composition similar
> > to that of Shirokovsky. The metallurgists gave quite an irrefutable
>answer.
> > Only three ways of forming metal are known:
> > 1. forging
> > 2. casting
> > 3. sintering (powder metallurgy)
> >
> > Forging:
> > Forging, where metal is heated to a high temperature, then hammered into
> > shape, is obviously out of the question.
> >
> > Casting
> > Casting an object with a composition similar to that of Shirokovsky is
> > possible only under zero gravity conditions, since Archimedean force would
> > instantly eject the lighter minerals to the surface.
> >
> > Sintering (Powder Metallurgy)
> > Sintering would allow minerals to disperse inside the mould. But no mould
> > could cast a stone with surface protrusions that jut out at opposing
>angles.
> > The extraction of the object from the mould would inevitably lead to its
> > destruction. Moreover, the outside cavities of the mould would tend to
>fill
> > with the smaller particles of powder instead of the larger mineral
>crystals.
> > Shirokovsky has surface protrusions that jut out at opposing angles. These
> > protrusions are filled with larger pieces of olivine and metallic matrix.
> >
> >
> > What is Shirokovsky?
> >
> > Thus, in summary, Shirokovsky can be described as:
> > "something found at the point of impact of a celestial body and something
> > impossible to produce with methods currently known to science".
> >
> >
> > A. Alexeyevich
> > Full Member of the Russian Geographical Society.
> > Participant of the search expedition for the Ugleuralsky (Shirokovsky)
> > meteorite.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman
Chair, Meteorite Nomenclature Committee (Meteoritical Society)
US Geological Survey
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Phone: (703) 648-6184 fax: (703) 648-6383
Received on Thu 12 Jun 2003 01:16:16 PM PDT