[meteorite-list] More data (Erich's comments)

From: mexicodoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:02:09 -0600
Message-ID: <00d301c836c1$525f8980$4001a8c0_at_MICASA>

Hi Erich, Listees (So, so sorry about my multiple postings difficulty - must
be due to Sunspot activity),

Erich wrote:
"the question is actually whether most meteorites are capable of being

That is A great question, but THE question was actually about whether:
 "There are ET sources capable of magnetizing meteorites (iron containing
ones of course) such that when Earthlings pick up a meteorite they could
say, "Hey, this was magnetized in outer space, this meteorite really is an
ET magnet!, So cool!"

as the list already covered decisively how to magnetize meteorites or iron
in general on several ocassions, most recently by Pete S. The consequential
question is the infamous claim that "Meteorites are naturally permanent
magnets when they arrive at Earth." (NOT!!!). That is what the meteorite
collectors deal with debunking when every yahoo pops up with a meteorite
casting green phosfluorescence and regurgitating bubbling dark mauve slime.
This exercise is just a thought process to that corollary see if it really
is possible for a magnetized meteorite to arrive...

"If it orbited exactly at the magnetic equator all the time, only then would
it be magnetized."

On the comment that magnetization can only occur if the orbit is "exactly at
the magnetic equator", I would disagree. All we are looking for is a net
cumulative component - thus, while crossing over the poles will potentially
cancel, wouldn't any induced magnetic moment, from any non-polar orbit be
cumulative. Small variations off the "magnetic" equator would be
practically just as good, for example, which would indicate there is no need
for such exactitude.

"Magnetic moment decreases at the cube root of the distance."

I didn't mention any relationship, just practical numbers with common
magnets, as I am not sure whether it is all that accurate when dealing with
such macro inhomogeneous phenomena. For example, the Sun's magnetic field
is 100 times stronger than the typical simplistic formula would predict, if
I recall. In any case, cube root proportionality were true we would live in
a very different (interesting) universe. I believe you mean it drops off by
the inverse of the distance cubed!!!

So, if we double the distance the field strength is cut to 12.5% (=1/8) at
twice the distance.

Not, as your comment suggests, double the distance and INCREASE to 126%
(cube root of 2) the value if as you suggest, (nor even by the inverse of
this, to a still way high 80% the value).

In these latter cases of cube root dependence or inverse cube root
dependence, the world would be like Magneto of Marvel's X-Men...

Maybe I've made an honest mistake (can't see it) on something relating to
magnetic moment vs. field strength, but appreciate your comments,
Best wishes and Great Health,

PS, Larense (a kind list member) actually brought up an interesting point
recently. I interpreted it to be that, iron meteorites buried a long time
can become magnetized by Earth's field. For this to happen,
=>the meteorite (any iron really) must be held fixed (in the ground matrix).
That's hard to do, but not impossible. In any case I would imagine the
magnetization will be so minimal that you will need to make compass needles
out of them and float them on water to see this effect...

----- Original Message -----
From: Erich Kern
To: mexicodoug ; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More data

Only if it remained oriented in the same direction as the field of Jupiter.
For example, if it orbited Jupiter north-south, the field is reversed on the
return trip going south to north. If it orbited exactly at the magnetic
equator all the time, only then would it be magnetized.

I think the question is actually whether most meteorites are capable of
being magnetized. If they're composed of mostly iron & nickel, the answer is

Magnetic moment decreases at the cube root of the distance.

Received on Tue 04 Dec 2007 05:02:09 PM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb