A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The total mass of meteorites



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 18th 13, 09:45 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
valtih1978
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 19th 13, 01:27 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
David Staup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default 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  
Old February 19th 13, 10:34 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
valtih1978
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 19th 13, 02:55 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
David Staup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default 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  
Old February 19th 13, 06:01 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
valtih1978
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 19th 13, 10:25 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default 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
  #7  
Old February 20th 13, 11:57 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Alastair McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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.




  #8  
Old February 21st 13, 11:52 AM
Tinech Tinech is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valtih1978 View Post
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?
It is bad. Our earth is becoming dangerous place to live
  #9  
Old February 22nd 13, 08:20 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Newshound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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.
  #10  
Old February 22nd 13, 08:42 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
David Staup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default 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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.