[meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...

From: Tom aka James Knudson <knudson911_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:39 2004
Message-ID: <005101c33359$eaff1f40$35c843d8_at_malcolm>

Hello Steve, Al and list. Steve wrote;
," I have to conclude that they burned for some time and either did not
create much of a crust or the crust was lost in flight.
If crust was lost in flight, I am surprised that none (or little) has been
found apart from the masses"

If this did happen could this explain the small Tektite-like objects the
Hupe's found in the box?
Thanks, Tom
The proudest member of the IMCA 6168
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com
  To: almitt_at_kconline.com ; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
  Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Seems PF fell on 3/27 and NOT on 3/26...


  Hello almitt_at_kconline.com wrote:

  A number of the Park Forest Meteorites seem to be quite rough in outside
texture while
  still having fusion crust. This to me indicates a low altitude breakup of
the
  fireball. I don't know however if it could have broken up as low as 7,000
feet which
  also seems too low to me also.

  ***********

  AL and list,

  I have seen many pieces both small, medium and large that have had little
fusion crust, but still have had some fusion crust on all sides. In fact, I
have had some specimens that looked like they were mostly or all dark, but
still have some crust, but when I would closely examine them, it often times
seemed that there was a small patch of light material that would be up on
the surface area and it was the light material that was cursted over. The
dark material (impact melted portions?) seem to either have not created
much, if any crust in the first place or the crust that was formed flaked
off very easily in flight.

  Could it be that if the melted portions (from the in space impact) just
are not as good at forming or holding crust when they enter our atmosphere?

  Even many of the almost crustless specimens are very well rounded. Out of
the 175 or specimens I have seen with my own eyes, a few have been obvious
fragments, with well crusted portions and very sharp breaks in other parts
of their surface, ones that clearly broke after the burn out. However, with
a large majority of the crustless or near crustless specimens, that are so
rounded, some even nose cone shaped, I have to conclude that they burned for
some time and either did not create much of a crust or the crust was lost in
flight.

  If crust was lost in flight, I am surprised that none (or little) has been
found apart from the masses. Or maybe we just ahven been looking for
papaer thin crust fragments. Or that the paper thin crust fragments were
subject to winds that carried them out of the stewnfield area where we have
been looking.

  Also, I have to disagree with Adam Hupe when he said in a previous post
that the strewnfield is mostly round. It is not. It is quite long, and
even less oval and more like a long rectangle, with a very predictable sizes
found from under a gram up to the 2.7kg pieces we know about. In fact, if
more pieces are found in the 10KG to 50kg to 100kg or bigger in size, I
think we will find that the distribution pattern is even more normal. There
is just one anomaly that we have found in the distribution process, and I
will leave that for a research paper we will be writing one the strewnfield
in the future.

  Steve Arnold
Received on Sun 15 Jun 2003 12:19:36 PM PDT