Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The total mass of meteorites
17 views
Skip to first unread message
valtih1978
Feb 18, 2013, 3:45:10 PM2/18/13
to
Some good people say that "2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth". Why
this information is banned from Wikipedia? Secondly, 2013 Russian meteor
"weighed about 10 tons before it entered the Earth's atmosphere"
Am I read right? Is it really a single meteorite weights the mass of all
meteorites per year? How much mass do meteorite loose when burning in
the atmosphere?
this information is banned from Wikipedia? Secondly, 2013 Russian meteor
"weighed about 10 tons before it entered the Earth's atmosphere"
Am I read right? Is it really a single meteorite weights the mass of all
meteorites per year? How much mass do meteorite loose when burning in
the atmosphere?
David Staup
Feb 18, 2013, 7:27:01 PM2/18/13
to
"valtih1978" <d...@not.email.me> wrote in message
news:kfu3r2$mau$1...@dont-email.me...
years on average.
factor that into the equation and it makes sense
every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
much as ablaited
valtih1978
Feb 19, 2013, 4:34:18 AM2/19/13
to
> every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
> much as ablaited
possess no threat. Right?
David Staup
Feb 19, 2013, 8:55:05 AM2/19/13
to
news:kfvgt8$ua5$1...@dont-email.me...
obviously you have never heard of cosmic rays which are small particles that
strike the atmosphere at close to the speed of light...much potential damage
there.
outside of that, you are correct. However the term "small" is is relative
and in communications such as these can lead to much confusion. And then
there is the question of "how many" small particles are you talking about?
individually small particles pose little or no threat but a large mass of
individual particles can pose a grave threat.....tungusta comes to mind.
strike the atmosphere at close to the speed of light...much potential damage
there.
outside of that, you are correct. However the term "small" is is relative
and in communications such as these can lead to much confusion. And then
there is the question of "how many" small particles are you talking about?
individually small particles pose little or no threat but a large mass of
individual particles can pose a grave threat.....tungusta comes to mind.
valtih1978
Feb 19, 2013, 12:01:22 PM2/19/13
to
> obviously you have never heard of cosmic rays which are small particles that
strike the atmosphere at close to the speed of light...much potential
damage
there.
> outside of that, you are correct. However the term "small" is is relative
> and in communications such as these can lead to much confusion. And then
> there is the question of "how many" small particles are you talking about?
> individually small particles pose little or no threat but a large mass of
> individual particles can pose a grave threat.....tungusta comes to mind.
means that they are seriously torn down. Is produced dust as much
dangerous as the same mass keeping to run with the core? I am asking how
much speed/mass does meteorite loose due to the atmosphere and if impact
is the same if it hits as one large core or broken into pieces. You can
divide it into 2, 3, ... any number of parts. How the danger is reduced
(or stay the same/increased) as the function of the denominator?
Tunguska was a single core. Exactly like recent Chelabinsk event, it
exploded in the air and the sound wave caused a lot of damage. No parts
of Tunguska were ever found, neither they produced any damage.
Martin Brown
Feb 19, 2013, 4:25:38 PM2/19/13
to
On 19/02/2013 09:34, valtih1978 wrote:
>
>> every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
>> much as ablaited
>
Surface usually burns to some extent leaving a characteristic fusion
>
>> every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
>> much as ablaited
>
crust where melting occurred - particularly if it is an iron meteorite
facing an atmospheric plasma containing oxygen. Small stuff is usually
described as burning up on entry although in reality melting and then
vapourising is probably a more accurate description.
Most meteors you see are grain of sand sized.
>
> I mean that small particles are easy to be stopped by atmosphere and
> possess no threat. Right?
More accurately the dust ends up as micrometeorites and the mass of them
> I mean that small particles are easy to be stopped by atmosphere and
> possess no threat. Right?
incident on the Earth is distinctly larger but highly uncertain. Wiki
gives an estimate of 30 +/- 20kT of cosmic dust per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeorite
A cool trick to separate the magnetite like component from the black
dust in your plastic gutters is using a high flux neodymium magnet.
It has an insignificant terminal velocity so is not threat unless you
subscribe to Hoyle & Wickramasing's panspermia flu theory.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Alastair McDonald
Feb 20, 2013, 5:57:39 PM2/20/13
to
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s5SUs.151803$EO2....@newsfe04.iad...
There is a wind which forms high in the upper atmosphere and slowly, over
more than a year drops until it exists in the tropopause. A new
wind then forms in the upper atmsophere blowing in the opposite direction,
and it too falls. The whole cycle takes about 2.4 years hence it is known as
the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.
It occurred to me that if magnetised micro meteors were falling to ground,
then the magnetic field of the Earth would cause them orbit so producing the
wind. That wind would induce a magnetic fiels in the opposite direction and
cause the next layer of infalling micro meteors to rotate in the opposite
direction.
Do you know if anyone else has proposed this as a cause of the QBO?
Cheers, Alastair.
news:s5SUs.151803$EO2....@newsfe04.iad...
more than a year drops until it exists in the tropopause. A new
wind then forms in the upper atmsophere blowing in the opposite direction,
and it too falls. The whole cycle takes about 2.4 years hence it is known as
the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.
It occurred to me that if magnetised micro meteors were falling to ground,
then the magnetic field of the Earth would cause them orbit so producing the
wind. That wind would induce a magnetic fiels in the opposite direction and
cause the next layer of infalling micro meteors to rotate in the opposite
direction.
Do you know if anyone else has proposed this as a cause of the QBO?
Cheers, Alastair.
newshound
Feb 22, 2013, 2:20:43 PM2/22/13
to
On 19/02/2013 13:55, David Staup wrote:
> "valtih1978" <d...@not.email.me> wrote in message
> news:kfvgt8$ua5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
>>> much as ablaited
>>
>>
>> I mean that small particles are easy to be stopped by atmosphere and
>> possess no threat. Right?
>
> obviously you have never heard of cosmic rays which are small particles that
> strike the atmosphere at close to the speed of light...much potential damage
> there.
Fascinating factoid on The Life Scientific the other day, claiming the
> "valtih1978" <d...@not.email.me> wrote in message
> news:kfvgt8$ua5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> every bit of the mass eventually hits the earth as nothing is "burned" so
>>> much as ablaited
>>
>>
>> I mean that small particles are easy to be stopped by atmosphere and
>> possess no threat. Right?
>
> obviously you have never heard of cosmic rays which are small particles that
> strike the atmosphere at close to the speed of light...much potential damage
> there.
energy in fastest heavy nuclei was the same as an Andy Murray serve.
David Staup
Feb 22, 2013, 2:42:34 PM2/22/13
to
"newshound" <news...@fairadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5127c508$0$50072$c3e8da3$ff95...@news.astraweb.com...
nature can pack into a sub-atomic particle.
David Kerber
Feb 28, 2013, 9:12:11 AM2/28/13
to
In article <kg8hle$2i7$1...@dont-email.me>, dst...@sbcglobal.net says...
...
> > Fascinating factoid on The Life Scientific the other day, claiming
the
> > energy in fastest heavy nuclei was the same as an Andy Murray serve.
>
>
> Yea, I've heard or read similar analogies. Tis amazing how much momentum
> nature can pack into a sub-atomic particle.
Google the "oh my god particle".
...
> > Fascinating factoid on The Life Scientific the other day, claiming
the
> > energy in fastest heavy nuclei was the same as an Andy Murray serve.
>
>
> Yea, I've heard or read similar analogies. Tis amazing how much momentum
> nature can pack into a sub-atomic particle.
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2013, 11:25:11 PM11/2/13
to
Annual average influx is perhaps worth 50,000 tonnes (increasing).
Most of the influx comes from items well under 1 kg.
David Staup
Nov 3, 2013, 6:18:00 PM11/3/13
to
L
O
L
0 new messages