304 views

Over 15,000 photos and growing!


  2 - April - 2016

This Month       Today's Picture       Select a Month

Submit a Picture

Where is My Picture?!

The Queue


Select by   Contributor

Met Name

Met Type

Thin Sections


Recent Comments

Sikhote Alin   contributed by Herbert Raab   MetBul Link


Roll Overs:     #1   #2   #3    


Click the picture to view larger photos

View all entries for   Meteorite (160)   Herbert Raab (51)


52.9 gram individual.   Iron, IIAB

TKW 23 MT. Observed fall 12 February 1947, Primorskiy kray, Russia.


 


Herbert writes:
Sikhote-Alin is my favorite meteorite. The variety of sizes, shapes and surface structures of the individual meteorites from this shower never cease to amaze me. Shown here is a 52,9 g individual with a perfect "impact crater", about 5 mm in diameter. The crater is accompanied by two more, tiny craters that are so small that they are hardly visible to the naked eye. These smaller craters are best visible in the close-up (photo 3). Don't confuse the "impact craters" with the corrosion pits (e.g., near the upper left corner in photo 3).
Click to view larger photos

#1

#2

#3

Found at the arrow (green or red) on the map below


View Larger Map
 


Comment on this MPOD                      
Name
Comment

980 max length

  Please - NO Dealer Ads in the comments
but pictures from dealers are gladly accepted

Tomorrow

Chergach
John Divelbiss

This Month

1 picture in the Queue
Graham Macleod
 4/2/2016 9:40:52 PM
Beautiful sculpted S.A. Herbert, The regg's and the holes are evident of a really hot meteorite piece streaking through the atmosphere! Well done M8!
MexicoDoug
 4/2/2016 5:46:45 PM
I don't think we should jump to conclusions since most of us are biased in favor of impacts. This should be easy enough to study. Why not both phenomena happening? In the particular MPOD case here, I'd suggest there is just enough raised material to explain where the extra material goes when a bubble pops. Metal is very cohesive and possibly still ablating. These pits are frequently just too perfect looking to me. Thumbprints themselves prove that material can be removed unevenly. I'd even say you don't need any exploding bubbles at all, just ablation doing the job. Look up Yellowstone mud pots and watch the formation and popping and what remains afterward before settling ...
Herbert
 4/2/2016 1:09:30 PM
Indeed, Krinov described these features as pits "formed by bubbles of gas which seperate from the meteorite at the moment pf crustal foration" (see "Principles of Meteoritics, p. 276-277). Later, Killgore and McHone interpreted them "as impact craters resulting from high velocity collisions between meteoritic particles during the latest stages of atmospheric flight" ("Small Impact Craters on Sikhote-Alin Iron Meteorite Surfaces", LPSC 98, Abstract 1839 - you can find this online if you search for the title). I do, however, wonder if there are enough volatiles in a solid iron meteorite to create pits of this size, and if the evaportion of such volatiles has enough power to create the raised rims of bent-over metal seen around the large "crater" in the above sample. But maybe both types exist?
Larry Atkins
 4/2/2016 9:29:40 AM
Are they impact pits or volatile material heating up and exploding outward? These pits are evident on the irons from Franconia as well, which I've been told are not impact pits. They look the same to me, I doubt there are two different explanations.
Dr. Mike Reynolds
 4/2/2016 5:41:15 AM
"The Impact Crater" -- I love it! As Graham already noted, the impact pit on this S-A is really a nice characteristic of the sample. Thanks for sharing it with us, Herbert.
Graham
 4/2/2016 4:51:13 AM
Love the ones with impact pits...very nice.
 

Hosted by
Tucson Meteorites
Server date and time
4/18/2024 1:23:43 PM
Last revised
03/29/24
Terms of Use Unsubscribe