|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
"valtih1978" wrote in message ... 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? The russian meteor was of a size that hits the earth but once every 100 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
"valtih1978" wrote in message ... 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. 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
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. Do you mean that Tunguska at the speed of light is not more dangerous? 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. The big chunks that reach the ground are shaped like arrow heads. This 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
On 19/02/2013 13:55, David Staup wrote:
"valtih1978" wrote in message ... 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 energy in fastest heavy nuclei was the same as an Andy Murray serve. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
"newshound" wrote in message eb.com... On 19/02/2013 13:55, David Staup wrote: "valtih1978" wrote in message ... 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 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
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 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 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The total mass of meteorites
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
... 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 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 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 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
STS total burn rate/mass | Monte Davis | Space Shuttle | 2 | August 10th 07 12:20 PM |
How Total is a Total Solar Eclipse ?? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 26 | September 12th 06 12:53 PM |
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs att | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 16th 05 08:54 AM |
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs attache | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 15th 05 12:22 PM |
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass implies imaginary mass | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 1st 05 08:36 PM |