[meteorite-list] Last on Adamana for a while (I hope)

[JKGwilliam]

Dave,
It was good to talk to you on the phone the other day. Thanks for the 
update and your always appreciated opinion.  I hope to get up there and do 
a little scouting around with you before Summer.  And, as far as I'm 
concerned, you and Schoner are the experts when it comes to Holbrook.

Best,
JKG

At 10:09 PM 3/1/2007, DNAndrews wrote:

>Hi again, Jason,

>

>I've been researching the Holbrook field and it's history for about 9

>years now.  Talking to old timers and listening to their stories passed

>down from their ancestors, etc. I've found 100's of the stones and the

>people I've hunted with, at least a hundred more.  I think I/we have a

>pretty good idea now as to the orientation of the elipse and the size of

>the known field.  From all of this, I can pretty much now tell what

>direction the bolide came from and which way it was headed.  I can tell

>you now, from personal experience, it's now 3-1/2 x 1-1/2 miles.  You

>can quote Norton, Kring, Farrington, Google all you want, but that's the

>size....now.  It's not growing from erosion.  Now that's "ridiculous"

>(as you keep saying).  Those stones didn't blow in the wind on top and

>sides of those dunes, nor did they go down some torential wash and end

>up there either.  I'm sure the modern day King of Holbrook, Steve

>Schoner, will agree with me on this as will a few others.  In fact, it

>was years I ago I got the approx. dimensions from him off this very list.

>

>The only reason I mentioned large chondrules in some of the original

>finds, is to point out the Holbrook meteorite was not homogenous in

>structure.  There is even a picture I have of an original Foote stone

>that has an 11mm hole where a chondrule fell out of it's crust.

>However, of all my finds, I only see a size of 1mm or maybe a very few

>2mm (as the largest) chondrules in the matrix.  I found one stone of

>~140 gms in weight, that was in fragments.  It's non-crusted, exposed

>surfaces were brown....much like the sides of the Adamana stone.  I have

>a cast of the Adamana, and it's of such quality that I can see some of

>the chondrules.  They look just like the size of the typical chondrules

>in the Holbrook finds to me.

>

>I appreciate all your textbook explanations as to why I'm a kook, but I

>really don't think the Holbrook was a "textbook" fall.  Yes, I thought

>of sonic booms as the rapid succession explosions.  As far as all the

>pressure and stress on the front of the bolide, what effect does that

>have on the trailing portion of the body?  It appears that the Adamana

>nose cone made it through it's flight in the atmosphere to it's strewn

>field.  Did I say strewn field?  Sorry, my mistake.  And the back side

>of the stone?  Looks quite cracked and friable to me.  The only thing

>about it that bothers me is the top-side crust.

>

>Now, I'm not going to tell everything I know to you or hundreds of other

>people.  That would be cutting my own throat like I've probably already

>said too much already.  However, I will share that I talked to the

>original finders of the Adamana stone last night on the phone.  It was

>found in their horse corral and then they used it as a door stop on

>their barn.  They know nothing of any Railroad bed filler in the

>corral.  So, out goes the fence post story....the cowboy with the .22 (

>who will remain nameless as well).....the Goodwater story, etc.  The

>good news is I have my permission to hunt on their property.  I expect

>to come up empty-handed, but who knows?  Might get lucky like Larry

>did.  ;-)

>

>Anyway Jason, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled my

>kooky, half-baked theory.  As you said, you weren't here at the time of

>the fall, neither was I.  But, I'm here now...that's the difference.

>

>Cheers,

>Dave (who is running late to work)

>

>Jason Utas wrote:

>

> > Hello Dave, All,

> >

> > >If indeed the Adamana meteorite is the front piece of the Holbrook, and

> > I'm NOT saying it is

> >

> > The idea of a 'front piece' of the Holbrook mass is something that I

> > find completely ridiculous.  Stress mechanics alone state that

> > anything at the front of the object would be subjected to much greater

> > stress than the remainder of the stone and would therefore be the

> > first part of the stone to fragment.  There's simply no reason

> > whatsoever for the trailing remainder of the meteorite to so violently

> > explode, seeing as it must have been subjected to much lesser forces.

> > If, however, it were simply a small portion of a larger 'main mass' of

> > Holbrook that one hypothesizes must have traveled an additional number

> > of miles past the known termination of the strewnfield, you might have

> > the basis for some sort of multiple-fragmentation, the likes of which

> > has *never* been seen before, with at least two distribution ellipses

> > separated my miles of 'barren' land.  I, however, find this about

> > equally unlikely as the previously mentioned possibility, if not more

> > so.

> >

> > >then it would have the thickest primary crust out

> > of any other portion of the fall.

> >

> > Why?  There's no reason for such a 'front piece,' even supposing it

> > could exist, to not fragment later into multiple pieces just as the

> > remainder of the fall had.  In all probability, if such a 'front

> > piece' existed, this would most likely be a portion that broke off

> > of it, and as such, its crust would most likely be the same as the

> > rest of the fall.

> >

> > That said, you do seem to acknowledge the fact that it's crust does,

> > in general, appear to be much more thick/different in appearance than

> > that of Holbrook, to say nothing of the interior...

> >

> > >There are pictures of original finds

> > that have chondrules as much as 5-7 mm in diameter.

> >

> > I know.  Holbrook has much larger chondrules than that of Adamana, at

> > least as well as can be seen on the broken surfaces.

> >

> > >Also, one has to

> > keep in mind that it was found in a horse corral.  I'm sure acidic horse

> > urine and different soil conditions could have some kind of effect on it

> > as well...IF it was.

> >

> > Versus sitting in a watershed plain next to an annually torrential

> > wash?  Different soil conditions might create a difference in

> > weathering (though if it is, as you say, a mere four miles away, I

> > doubt there would be any difference at all), but horse urine effects

> > would be negligible at best...corrals are used sporadically at best

> > anyways, to say nothing of the fact that annual rainfall.

> > In fact, while the horse urine would be acidic, it would take

> > rain/moisture to disassociate the ions in order to actually create any

> > acidic effects - and as we all know, when it rains in Az, it

> > pours...and would wash all of the acid downriver and out of the

> > soil anyways.

> >

> > >I'm just saying that I for one, am not quite ready

> > to throw the "half-baked" theory in the trash....yet.

> >

> > Eh, I grant you that there's a small chance Adamana's a part of

> > Holbrook...in my opinion, very, very small.

> >

> > >Actually, the Adamana Meteorite was found 11 miles from Arntz (aka

> > Aztec).  Not quite all the way to Adamana which is 13 miles "as the

> > meteor flies".  (I did some remeasuring).  And, if the Goodwater theory

> > is correct, then you are only talking about 4 miles.  According to the

> > July 26, 1912 article on the Holbrook Argus: "There was a heavy

> > explosion similar to that of a heavy blast followed by a fuscillade of

> > smaller explosions which terminated in a thunder-like rumble of

> > approximately two minutes in duration."  In Warren Foote's Preliminary

> > Notes of the July 19, 1912 Meteoric Fall at Aztec, Arizona, he writes:

> > "It was heard in Concho, St. Joseph, Woodruff, and Pinedale, some 40

> > miles away.  One large explosion was quickly followed by several small

> > ones in rapid succession."

> >

> > Firstly, the strewnfield has varying descriptions in almost every

> > paper that I've seen.  I just read a paper in which Kring stated that

> > the strewnfield was ~1.5 sq. miles, a writeup by the DeLanges that

> > states that it was ~1 by ~1/2 miles.  I'm looking into Farrington - a

> > little hard for me while I'm at school ;)

> >

> > >Now it's more like 3 miles long by 1 mile wide and growing.  Even Warren

> > Foote mentions this dimension in 1912.

> >

> > Again, conflicting reports...though by now, erosion could have made

> > the field that large even if it hadn't been as big to start out

> > with...that would explain the 'growing' aspect of it I guess.  In any

> > case, I cannot consider myself a judge, seeing as I was not there at

> > the time of the fall, as were several well regarded scientific

> > figures, who gave conflicting reports.

> >

> > >Hmmm....I've never heard that before.  I'd like to know where you

> > read/heard that information as that is interesting to me.  According to

> > Foote:  "The large and small stones, according to all answers received,

> > were said to be indiscriminately spread over the ground, without regard

> > to size. The violent disruptions near Holbrook might account for the

> > lack of such a separation...."

> >

> > If, as you say, there truly was no separation between sizes of

> > fragments, it would almost certainly rule out any possibility of a

> > larger mass having continued much farther than the already defined

> > strewnfield.  Such a chaotic distribution could suggest nothing other

> > than a complete and catastrophic, if not instantaneous atmospheric

> > breakup.  Any classic atmospheric fragmentation would, as you know,

> > create an organized strewnfield with larger stones at one end and

> > small at the other.  If there is no distribution, there must have been

> > a very low and complete breakup - if large fragments did not even have

> > enough air-time to make it to one end of the strewnfield, how would

> > you expect another mass to proceed several miles farther?  It would

> > have to be part of a much larger (several tens of kilograms at the

> > very minimum) fragment.

> >

> > >In recent years, say the last 40, the larger finds that I know of have

> > been about in the center of the known field and on both sides of the

> > tracks.  I and others have found many smaller ones further north and

> > east of these larger stones.  I would like to know where the main mass

> > was found, but I've never been able to dig that up yet.  However, I've

> > never read or heard anywhere that it was found at the furthest point of

> > the field.

> >

> > I simply assumed that it was found in such a location based on all of

> > the arguments being put forth - if there is indeed no distribution

> > based on weight within the strewnfield, I see virtually no possibility

> > for Adamana being a part of the Holbrook fall, unless it was

> > previously found in the strewnfield and was later transported by

> > people.  The physics of it simply don't work out.

> >

> > >With all the numerous explosions, why not another 11 miles?  Some parts

> > must have still been ablating after the main explosion to have more

> > explosions.  At say, 7 miles per second (just as an aribitrary figure),

> > it wouldn't take long to cover that distance.  There is still quite a

> > bit of material still missing off of Haag's aerodynamic piece too.  But,

> > certainly not enough to make it come close to being the main mass.

> >

> > Because almost every fall has numerous stages of breakup.  Because

> > even within these falls, there is (to my knowledge) always a single

> > strewnfield, with very little deviation from the rule that larger

> > stones fall at the far end and small ones at the other.

> >

> > When you say 'explosions,' you do realize that you are referring to

> > sonic booms in most cases, do you not?  The multiple 'booms' often

> > heard during falls are not due to the physical breakup of the

> > meteorite itself, but rather to the stones' breaking of the sound

> > barrier.  Thus these multiple detonations heard were probably due to

> > the existence of a number of number of stones that were large enough

> > to retain some of their cosmic velocity for long enough to break the

> > sound barrier in an audible manner.

> > The initial large explosion heard would explain the initial sound

> > effects of the large body either simply passing overhead at a great

> > velocity or possibly it's violent fragmentation, whereas the rumbling

> > heard afterwards can certainly be attributed to the many fragments

> > that must have been large enough just after this explosion to still

> > retain the velocity needed to create sound effects of their own, on a

> > much smaller scale.

> >

> > >Huh?  In the Holbrook Argus article, it states: "The sky was lightly

> > overcast with patches of high floating clouds, but immediately after the

> > explosion a smoky trail similar to the smoke of an automobile's exhaust

> > was visible.  The trail disappeared in a LITTLE NORTH of east in

> > direction."  Well, Arntz is ENE of Holbrook and Adamana is ENE of

> > Arntz.  The strewn field and the railroad tracks are in a ENE

> > orientation.  Drawing a line from Holbrook through Arntz takes you right

> > to Adamana....in fact, this line can possibly go a little bit north of

> > what is shown as Adamana on a topo map.  (next to the railroad tracks

> > where the propane plant is).

> >

> > And I've read other reports stating that it followed a due East

> > path...figures.  I wasn't there, and see no way how one can decide

> > between your sources and mine.  This path, even if followed to a

> > ridiculous extent (you're going to be hard pressed to find a

> > strewnfield for a stony meteorite that's confirmed to be this long),

> > takes you quite a distance south of Adamana.  But this all depends on

> > the accuracy of the reports....who could possibly know.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Jason

> >

> > On 2/27/07, DNAndrews <dna1 at cableone.net <mailto:dna1 at cableone.net>>

> > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >     Jason Utas wrote:

> >

> >     > Hello All,

> >     > There are a few things that separate Adamana from Holbrook in my

> >     mind...

> >     > The texture of the crust alone of Adamana versus that of Holbrook

> >     > leaves me little doubt that the two could possibly be paired.

> >

> >     Hi Jason,

> >     I think you meant to say that "the two could NOT possibly be paired?

> >     Not trying to argue, just think a few points need to be said.

> >

> >     > The fusion crust of Adamana is a matte black, which contrasts

> >     sharply

> >     > with the crust of recently found Holbrooks, which exhibit a

> >     typically

> >     > blue/black almost shiny crust in most cases, often liberally spread

> >     > with rust spots.

> >     > The interior tells the same story - Adamana is a uniform brown, with

> >     > chondrules poking out here and there.  Recently found Holbrooks

> >     tend

> >     > to be less weathered internally, if not more externally, and their

> >     > dark chondrules contrast starkly with the lighter matrix, creating a

> >     > much more heterogeneous appearance than that of Adamana.

> >

> >     If indeed the Adamana meteorite is the front piece of the

> >     Holbrook, and

> >     I'm NOT saying it is, then it would have the thickest primary

> >     crust out

> >     of any other portion of the fall.  There are pictures of original

> >     finds

> >     that have chondrules as much as 5-7 mm in diameter. Also, one has to

> >     keep in mind that it was found in a horse corral.  I'm sure acidic

> >     horse

> >     urine and different soil conditions could have some kind of effect

> >     on it

> >     as well...IF it was.  I'm just saying that I for one, am not quite

> >     ready

> >     to throw the "half-baked" theory in the trash....yet.

> >

> >     > The location of the find....

> >     > Fifteen miles is simply impossible, unless it was artificially

> >     > transported.

> >

> >     Actually, the Adamana Meteorite was found 11 miles from Arntz (aka

> >     Aztec).  Not quite all the way to Adamana which is 13 miles "as the

> >     meteor flies".  (I did some remeasuring).  And, if the Goodwater

> >     theory

> >     is correct, then you are only talking about 4 miles.  According to the

> >     July 26, 1912 article on the Holbrook Argus: "There was a heavy

> >     explosion similar to that of a heavy blast followed by a fuscillade of

> >     smaller explosions which terminated in a thunder-like rumble of

> >     approximately two minutes in duration."  In Warren Foote's Preliminary

> >     Notes of the July 19, 1912 Meteoric Fall at Aztec, Arizona, he writes:

> >     "It was heard in Concho, St. Joseph, Woodruff, and Pinedale, some 40

> >     miles away.  One large explosion was quickly followed by several small

> >     ones in rapid succession."

> >

> >     >   The mapped strewnfield was roughly one mile long by a half

> >     mile wide.

> >

> >     Now it's more like 3 miles long by 1 mile wide and growing.  Even

> >     Warren

> >     Foote mentions this dimension in 1912.

> >

> >     >   The largest stone recovered, weighing in at ~14.5 lbs, was

> >     found at

> >     > the end of this ellipse.

> >

> >     Hmmm....I've never heard that before.  I'd like to know where you

> >     read/heard that information as that is interesting to

> >     me.  According to

> >     Foote:  "The large and small stones, according to all answers

> >     received,

> >     were said to be indiscriminately spread over the ground, without

> >     regard

> >     to size. The violent disruptions near Holbrook might account for the

> >     lack of such a separation...."

> >

> >     >   The possibility that anything made it farther than this stone

> >     is great -

> >

> >     In recent years, say the last 40, the larger finds that I know of have

> >     been about in the center of the known field and on both sides of the

> >     tracks.  I and others have found many smaller ones further north and

> >     east of these larger stones.  I would like to know where the main mass

> >     was found, but I've never been able to dig that up yet.  However, I've

> >     never read or heard anywhere that it was found at the furthest

> >     point of

> >     the field.

> >

> >     > it wouldn't surprise me too greatly if a 20lber was found another

> >     > quarter of a mile on (it could've buried itself on impact, etc), but

> >     > to say that a smaller stone continued another fifteen miles

> >     beyond the

> >     > known end of the strewnfield is simply ridiculous,

> >

> >     With all the numerous explosions, why not another 11 miles?  Some

> >     parts

> >     must have still been ablating after the main explosion to have more

> >     explosions.  At say, 7 miles per second (just as an aribitrary

> >     figure),

> >     it wouldn't take long to cover that distance.  There is still quite a

> >     bit of material still missing off of Haag's aerodynamic piece

> >     too.  But,

> >     certainly not enough to make it come close to being the main mass.

> >

> >     > to say nothing of the fact that it is much too far north to even

> >     > be near the same path as the body that created the Holbrook

> >     strewnfield.

> >

> >     Huh?  In the Holbrook Argus article, it states: "The sky was lightly

> >     overcast with patches of high floating clouds, but immediately

> >     after the

> >     explosion a smoky trail similar to the smoke of an automobile's

> >     exhaust

> >     was visible.  The trail disappeared in a LITTLE NORTH of east in

> >     direction."  Well, Arntz is ENE of Holbrook and Adamana is ENE of

> >     Arntz.  The strewn field and the railroad tracks are in a ENE

> >     orientation.  Drawing a line from Holbrook through Arntz takes you

> >     right

> >     to Adamana....in fact, this line can possibly go a little bit

> >     north of

> >     what is shown as Adamana on a topo map.  (next to the railroad tracks

> >     where the propane plant is).

> >

> >     Anyway, I just feel more investigating needs to be done to make a

> >     decision whether "yea" or "nay" on the subject.  Maybe Bob will

> >     someday

> >     have a little crumb analyzed for curiousities sake or someone will

> >     make

> >     another find well outside of the known strewn field.

> >

> >     Respectfully,

> >     Dave

> >

> >

> >------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >______________________________________________

> >Meteorite-list mailing list

> >Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

> >

> >

>______________________________________________

>Meteorite-list mailing list

>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list