Subject: Re: What is the mass of the earth?
From: macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 20:48:12 GMT
In article
s1045099@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au writes:
|In article S Krueger
writes:
|>From: S Krueger
..
|>>I would like to know the mass of the earth and the way that scientist
|>>to come up with that number.
|>>Please tell me about your profession.
|>>Thank you for your respond
|
|>Roughly 6 x 10^27 grams.
|
|>Simple physics, using the equations for gravitational acceleration
|>(Gmm/r^2). Drop a 1 kg mass in a vacuum, measure acceleration. G and
|>earth radius known. Solve for earth mass.
|
|But wasn't the value of the gravitational constant G (not g) in that
|equation derived by solving using the known Earth's mass and another 1kg
|mass and measuring acceleration. So how do you weigh the Earth without
|G? How did find the relationship between G and the Earth's mass in the
|first place?
Look up Henry Cavendish. You can probably find discussion in any
reasonably complete physics textbook. He was the first person to
accurately measure the gravitational constant in the lab, back in 1798,
using relatively small masses (compared to mountains or the entire Earth
:-)) using a torsion balance. His results were quite similar to more
precise measurements today, which are also independent of the mass of the
Earth. I think he managed to get 3 significant figures out of it, but it
was at least 2. It was a great experimental accomplishment considering the
problem. If you can find it, Cavendish's original paper on the experiment
has been reprinted, and makes a great read as an example of meticulous
experimentation.
--
-Andrew
macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
Subject: VOLCANIC ERUPTION ON ICELAND: ERS-SAR-IMAGES
From: George Ellis
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:42:32 +0200
VOLCANIC ERUPTION ON ICELAND: ERS-SAR-IMAGES
October 25, 1996
New ERS-2 SAR images of the recent subglacial eruption of Loki,
a volcano on Iceland, are now available on the DFD homepage:
http://www.dfd.dlr.de/HOT-TOPICS/volcano/
These images show the newest eruption on Vatnajökull, Europe's
largest glacier, which started on October 1.
This page is available both, in English and German language, and
will be updated as soon as new SAR data are processed and analyzed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a service of the German Remote Sensing Data Center (DFD).
For further information, please contact
boehm@dfd.dlr.de
mueschen@dfd.dlr.de
roth@dfd.dlr.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George Ellis
DFD Operation Control
Subject: Re: Magnetic symmetry supports new ocean ridge model
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:37:33 GMT
In a previous article, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) says:
wait a second; any expansion --and there must be *some*-- would be
a lot slower than the overall movements of the plates, or
they could be, if Carey's model assumes *only* expansion (sheesh).
the question is, is it measurable and, if it was,
was it tacitly assumed to be in the "error terms" ??
>For nearly twenty years people have been *directly measuring*
>plate motions with 1 cm/year accuracy, first by comparing pulsar
>timings at multiple sites and later with GPS data. Plates move.
>The Earth is not expanding. End of story. Sheesh.
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
Subject: Re: What is the mass of the earth?
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:45:34 GMT
In a previous article, gerard@hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) says:
wow, what a great experiment!... I wonder, though, if
the "autodynamics" hypothesis of relativity,
wherein the somewhat-special co-ordinate system (the "reference"
of Einstein and Earth of Cavendish) introduces extra stuff,
can be applied, such that the attracting masses can be put
into identiocal situations (such as both floating in water, or
in the bay of a space-shuttle). unfortunately,
I don't really believe AD (til further notice),
nor do I see how to make Cavendish's experiment "better" in practice.
>Use a Cavendish balance, two masses on a beam suspended by a torsion
>fibre. Bring another mass close to one of the ends and the beam will
>rotate to some equilibrium position because of gravitational attraction
>between the masses. From masses and distances, the equilibrium angles
>and the tortion constant, you can get G.
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
Subject: WY - Quatern. dates
From: burnsdm@UWYO.EDU
Date: 25 Oct 96 17:56:16 MDT
Hello all...
I am involved in a project to compile a Quaternary Wyoming map (initially
1:250,000, later recompiled to 1:1,000,000), beginning with the southeast
quadrant of the state.
If anyone would know of references for dating that has been done in any
areas in the southeast, would you be so kind as to pass along the info
to my email address: burnsdm@uwyo.edu
This can be carbon-14 dates, ash dates, whatever.
Thank you for your help and time.
Regards,
Diane Burns
burnsdm@uwyo.edu
Subject: Caltech Seismology Lab Helps Pinpoint Location of Meteorite Fall
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 23:04 UT
For Immediate Release
Caltech Seismo Lab gets location data on Oct. 3 meteor
PASADENA- Should anyone be inclined to do a bit of meteorite hunting this
weekend for a $5,000 reward, Caltech seismologist Kate Hutton thinks she can
provide some help.
According to Hutton, any larger chunks from the meteor that lit up the
Western skies on the night of Oct. 3 may have landed in the Rose Valley area
near Little Lake. Hutton figured this out by analyzing data from 31 of
the seismic stations belonging to the Southern California Seismographic
Network (operated by Caltech and the U.S. Geological Survey). "As it fell,
the atmospheric drag caused the meteroid to explode in mid-air at least
twice," Hutton says. "The explosions generated sound waves in the air
similar to a sonic boom, which were detected by the seismographs. Using a
procedure that is very similar to the one used to locate earthquakes
underground, I used the arrival times of the sound waves at the various
seismic stations to estimate where the explosions occurred."
Two of the explosions were well located, Hutton adds. Both were 20 to 30
miles above the Fivemile Canyon area in the eastern Sierra foothills. The
explosions were separated by about 25 seconds, and the second was about five
miles lower than the first and about a mile further eastward. Based on
this data and on eyewitness accounts provided by John Wasson of UCLA and
Mark Boslough (Ph. D. from Caltech, 1984) of Sandia National Laboratory in
New Mexico, Hutton thinks that any larger fragments that survived the firey
entry into Earth's atmosphere would have landed to the east-northeast of the
explosions, perhaps in the Rose Valley area near Little Lake. Smaller
fragments may have fallen more or less straight down from where the
explosions occurred.
The Little Lake area would probably be the more seductive area to search,
and for a very good reason. UCLA has offered a $5,000 reward for the first
fragment that weighs at least four ounces.
Hutton says the seismographic instruments didn't pick up a meteorite impact
on Earth, but this is not surprising, since a single fragment would probably
have to weigh several tons in order for its impact to be detected.
The term "meteorite," by the way, refers to chunks of extraterrestrial debris
that survive the entry into the atmosphere and end up on the ground.
"Meteoroids" are chunks that travel through space, while "meteor" is the
proper designation for the light show produced by a rock from outer space
slowing down in the Earth's atmosphere.
Any surviving meteorite fragments would probably have a fresh black matte
crust. If the meteorite struck something on the ground, part of the crust
might have chipped off to reveal a lighter interior. If anyone finds a
meteorite fragment weighing at least four ounces, he or she should get in
touch with Dr. John Wasson at UCLA. Wasson's e-mail address is
wasson@igpp.ucla.edu.
Contact: Robert Tindol
(818) 395-3631
tindol@caltech.edu
Subject: Maxwell Equations: levels of organization, at least three Re:
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 00:09:33 GMT
In article <1996Oct15.173540.27248@lafn.org>
ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings) writes:
>
> In a previous article, pcowley@origin-at.co.uk (Phil Cowley) says:
>
> AP, how is a generator at a different "level" than a motor?
An electric current.
We (think) we know of 4 different forces :
1) Strong Nuclear
2) EM
3) radioactivity
4) gravity
But I put it to you that there are but 2 forces and those two are
complementary. Two of the above 4 are fictitious forces.
With HYASYS theory that the strong nuclear force is merely the EM
force in a close and crowded space. That a neutron is a hydrogen atom
and that the electron of a normal electron space has been confined
turning the normal electron into a nuclear electron. This eliminates
the strong nuclear force altogether and turns it into another form of
EM.
With HYASYS there is an EM level at the nuclear region and it
corresponds to a force strength of 10^40 between strong nuclear and EM
With EM and gravity there is another level and the force strength is
again 10^40
Thus we have a picture of 10^40 -- EM -- 10^40
That suggests to me that because the difference if strength between
gravity and EM, or EM and strong nuclear are of the same value that
these two of strong nuclear and gravity are sham forces and are just
quantized forms of EM
This leaves only the forces of EM and radioactivity
How can we picture gravity as EM? In the old view we thought that
gravitons were exchanged between every mass particle on Earth with
every mass particle of the Sun and that gravity was the exchanging of
these gravitons, but EM is 10^40 stronger and so we can eliminate 10^40
gravitons for each EM exchange. Perhaps the photon or the neutrino
perform more than what is currently known of them at this time and that
the photon/neutrino exhange on a ratio of 1 to 10^40 for mass,
substituting charge for mass in the Coulomb force law. There is a lot
that we do not know about photons and EM.
So we have two forces remaining EM and radioactivity
EM is Maxwell's Equations and one level of organization is Coulombs
law which is the above replacement of gravity.
Another level is the Electric Motor and the Earth is an Electric
Motor itself.
And a third level is the Electric Generator, generating an electric
current. In Radioactivity we can have beta decay, emissions of
electrons and this is an electric current. (But I believe the most
important function of radioactivity is its 'creation of new matter'
function which may perhaps be related with its being an Electric
Generator also).
I think 3 levels has some significance because we have 3 levels of
particle matter of electrons, of protons and of neutrons. I think these
3 levels ought to show themselves in astro bodies.
Subject: Re: help-limestone mining
From: manderly@netcom.ca (Susan Pinder)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 06:25:12 GMT
ahca@sedona.net (robin eddingfield) wrote:
>carrj@voyager.co.nz (Julie Carr) wrote:
>>We have been studying limestone rocks, their composition, and uses
>>particularly in manufacturing cement. We need to know of any adverse
>>effects on the environment of mining limestone, adverse effects of
>>manufacturing cement, and adverse effects of using limestone.
>>Can anyone help.
>>Thanks in anticipation
How about the adverse effects of not mining limestone.. of not
manufacturing cement (and hence concrete) ?? Take a look around - we
all can't live in log cabins ..
As for the 'cement' dust from a Cement Plant, any dust emissions from
the stack are not particles of _cement. The cement kiln is used to
produce hydraulic calcium silicates called clinker. Clinker leaves
the kiln in typically 1/ 4 inch sized particles.
The composition of the kiln dust depends of the type of kiln in use.
Older wet kiln technology, may produce kiln dust which contains
clinker minerals, whereas the kiln dust from the dry process is
largely partially calcined rawfeed (limestone). The majority of kiln
dust is caught in baghouses or ESP filters. A baghouse can typically
cost over 10 million dollars at any given Plant. And many Plants in
North America use this technology! Kiln dust is routinely used as an
agricultural mineralizer, and for soil stabilization.
The fuel is reguired to heat the kiln up to 1400 deg C. Many types of
fuels are used; oil, coal, natural gas, garbage, tires, sawdust,.. I
was at a Plant in Switzerland that burnt out of spec French perfume!
The cement kiln technology is better than most stand alone
incinerators because it generally obtains higher temperatures and the
residence time for destruction of chemical compounds is much longer.
All ash, as a result of combustion, is chemcially bound into the
clinker mineral structure; therefore there is no disposal problem.
Cement is manufactured by the inter-grinding of clinker and gypsum in
a ball mill. Each cement mill has a dust collector baghouse.
The best thing for you to do - to get first hand knowledge, is to call
up a cement Plant in your area and request a tour. Ask to meet with
their Environmental Manager to cover some of your questions. Then
draw _your_ own_ conclusions!
Literature can be obtained from :
http://www.buildingweb.com/cpca/
They have over 700 publications on cement and concrete. The Canadian
Portland Cement Association is affiliated with The Portland Cement
Association in Chicago. They have a catalogue of Technical papers,
books, videos, and slides.
If you would like a copy of The Cement Industry's Contribution to
Canada's GreenPlan, drop me a line.
~Susan
Subject: Re: Magnetic symmetry supports new ocean ridge model
From: S Krueger
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:49:38 GMT
In article <54p3jb$sm@udevdiv.Unibase.COM> John S., john@mail.petcom.com.
writes:
>The names Velikovsky and Waren S. Carey spring to mind.
The name Bozo the Clown springs to mind.
>An expanding
>Earth would explain a lot of things nicely. No longer to we need a huge
>comet to selectively wipe out the larger animals- increasing gravity
>fills the bill. There's no way T. Rex could chase anyone in today's
>gravity- he'd be like a beached whale; suffocating under his own
>weight.
Just like the giant mammals of the Tertiary, or like modern elephants,
which clearly cannot survive the incredible gravitational forces we now
experience. Not! The K/T extinctions took out much of the world's
species, from dinosaurs to plankton, in a geologic instant. If that event
were in any way related to a burst of Earth expansion, you'd see a record
of it. You don't.
Earth expansion of the magnitude proposed by Carey, Dirac, Owen and
company would be well within the capabilities of modern global geodetics
(VLBI) to measure. Guess what? It isn't happening.
>Where does this increase in mass come from? Where could the planet
>be receiving a steady supply of energy that might result in creation
>of new atoms?
>Perhaps it is by constantly blocking the energy given off by the
>galaxies which causes our gravity. Look at Jupiter- giving off 60%
>more radiation in the form of heat than it can possibly be receiving
>from the Sun.
Jupiter is an enormous gaseous planet with a nuclear furnace in it's core
(hence the radiation). What's this got to do with the Earth?
*******************************************************************
* S Krueger (skrueger@arco.com) * *
* This message is personal and does not * This Sace For Rent *
* reflect the opinions of my employer * *
*******************************************************************
Subject: Re: Dinosaur bones found after the KT; Re: If meteor extincted dinosaurs, why so few bones in the KT
From: "William D. Robertson"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:11:56 -0700
s1045099@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au wrote:
>
> In article <326B73DA.7D62@bio1.lan.mcgill.ca> "Zen Faulkes!" writes:
> >From: "Zen Faulkes!"
> >Subject: Re: Dinosaur bones found after the KT; Re: If meteor extincted dinosaurs, why so few bones in the KT
> >Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:00:10 -0400
>
> >Stephen Kurth wrote:
> >
> >> Parag Patel wrote:
> >>
> >>> I remember watching an episode of PaleoWorld (I think - at least it was on
> >>> the Learning Channel) that showed new dinosaur fossil discoveries in
> >>> Australia on th e seashore that dated to 40 million years *after* they died
> >>> out everywhere else on the planet.
> >>>
> >>> The implication was that it was 40 million years of fossils after the KT
> >>> boundary, but I don't remember if they actually said that on the show or
> >>> not.
> >>
> >> Actually, that episode on Dinosaur Cove in Australia was implying that a
> >> type of dinosaur survived long after it died out in North America. The
> >> fossils were still found in the upper Cretaceous, long before the KT
> >> boundary.
>
> > I didn't see that particular episode, but there is fairly good evidence that
> >some dinosaurs in Montana (ceratopsians) were still living several thousand
> >years after the K-T boundary. Not as impressive as the "millions" of years that
> >were brought up here (mistakenly), but it does point out the problem of trying
> >to figure out what went on, biologically speaking, at the K-T boundary.
>
> I believe that the dinosour bones found in Australia were not from your
> average 'great lizard'. I think I recall reading that these were
> more like small chicken-like animals, unusually adapted for the cold of
> Australia at the time. Indeed, they may have had to have been quite
> different from the rest of the reptiles as (if I recall correctly again)
> Australia was quite far south at the time, especially Dinosaur cove.
>
> Don't take this as gospel. It's from memory, and that means its probably
> wrong.
There are other articles which have been posted in National Geographic
Research several years ago (it was in graduate school and I do not have
either the articles or references ready to hand these days), which
detailed post-KT dinosaur remains from Canada and China
(carnisaur/theropod teeth found in Paleocene mammalian deposits without
the damaging effects of relocation and redeposition - and they ARE
fragile, believe me) as well as footprints of small theropods in South
America in Paleocene rock formations that also contained bones of fairly
large mammals.
This is a touchy subject for a lot of the paleo crowd (I nearly got
dropped from the grad program for mentioning them in an "open" forum on
(then) current research topics.
The "no dinosaurs this side of the KT" idea has become fully ingrained
in the collective paleo mainstream, and become more faith and dogma than
logic objective research.
Lots of work for someone with more time than me to accomplish. Go ye
forth and dig. Then we'll see.
Subject: Re: [Q]Geoscience Web Sites
From: glpb@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Paul Browning)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 06:26:42 GMT
Chun-Joong Chang (geochang@nanum.kaeri.re.kr) wrote:
: Hi..
:
: I have read "Geoscience Web Sites [FAQ]"
: in this group long ago.
:
: If anyone know, please tell me.
:
: Thanks,
:
:
Well there's
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/geology-faq/
which ought to contain a pointer to what you're thinking of.
Also:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Geol/gig/explore.html
for various getting started places.
--
Paul Browning, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK
Messages: +44 117 928 7788, Fax: +44 117 925 3385
RFC-822: Paul.Browning@bristol.ac.uk
X.400: G=Paul;S=Browning;O=Bristol;P=UK.AC;C=GB
URL: http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/
Subject: Re: Three Mars Missions to Launch in Late 1996
From: biobarge@shore.net (Will Warren)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 08:26:58 -0400
In article <54isk2$f7t@pace1.cts>, sjlee@mtu.edu (quibbit) wrote:
> In any rate the time can be shorter if you accelerate more. It would cost
> more to get all the propellant up into orbit, but I think you could have a
> faster flight if you merely increased your initiall acceleration for earth
> (and of course deceleration at Mars). Is there any possibility of making
> fuel from material on Demos or Phobos so as to not having to lug fuel for
> a return trip.
>
There's a movement within the space industry to send some sort of an
automated fuel production vehicle/device well ahead of the astronaughts.
The thing would show up with just hydrogen, then use the carbon in Mars'
atmosphere to produce methane for the return trip. Once the fuelbot has
produced enough it will give us a call, letting us know that we will
indeed be able to get back...
I don't remember the numbers, but the costs of a Mars-Lite trip were
significantly lower than if one had to lug all the fuel.
Will
Subject: Re: Three Mars Missions to Launch in Late 1996
From: dorman@lee.s3i.com (Clark Dorman)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 10:33:58 -0500
In article
biobarge@shore.net (Will Warren) writes:
|>
|> In article <54isk2$f7t@pace1.cts|>, sjlee@mtu.edu (quibbit) wrote:
|>
|> |> In any rate the time can be shorter if you accelerate more. It would cost
|> |> more to get all the propellant up into orbit, but I think you could have a
|> |> faster flight if you merely increased your initiall acceleration for earth
|> |> (and of course deceleration at Mars). Is there any possibility of making
|> |> fuel from material on Demos or Phobos so as to not having to lug fuel for
|> |> a return trip.
|>
|> There's a movement within the space industry to send some sort of an
|> automated fuel production vehicle/device well ahead of the astronaughts.
|> The thing would show up with just hydrogen, then use the carbon in Mars'
|> atmosphere to produce methane for the return trip. Once the fuelbot has
|> produced enough it will give us a call, letting us know that we will
|> indeed be able to get back...
One such idea is discussed in this month's Technology Review. You can see it
at:
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/tr.html
It actually makes a lot of sense, since the launching cost is largely a
function of weight, and an empty fuel tank weighs a lot less than a full one.
In addition, I think that the safety of the mission would be greatly
enhanced.
|> I don't remember the numbers, but the costs of a Mars-Lite trip were
|> significantly lower than if one had to lug all the fuel.
Yes, the cost would be less than if you tried to take it all there, and
largely due to the multiplicative effects. In aerospace applications, if you
can reduce the final wieght by a pound, you can reduce the initial wieght by
a great deal more than one pound, since the final pound requires additional
fuel to get it there, and structure to support it (and fuel for the
structure), etc. The design of aerospace structures has exponential
parameters.
Finally, since the vehicle is going by itself, it can take its own sweet time
getting there. Change in velocity is again one of those exponential
problems.
My only issue with the idea is that there are so many unknowns in launching
back from Mars. Assuming that the device lands, fuels, and is ready to go
when the astronauts (marstonauts?) land, who's to say that the structure can
take off again. We can test the fuel production vehicle for it's use on the
ground, and we know a great deal about launching vehicles, but a
Mars-to-Earth launch is tricky. The problem is easier (in my mind) if the
vehicle remains in orbit with a dedicated lander / launcher with the major
Mars-to-Earth vehicle remaining in orbit. Since all the fuel is going to be
on the ground, the main launcher is going to be there as well. It is an open
question as to whether the main launching vehicle will launch again
autonomously and wait in orbit, or whether it will launch with the
marstronauts.
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
Subject: Job Opportunity
From: mjohnsso@cc.brynmawr.edu (Mark J. Johnsson)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:07:02 -0500
Bryn Mawr College
The Department of Geology seeks a 1997-1998 leave replacement in
environmental geology and sedimentology to teach two courses per semester
and to participate in a concentration in Environmental Science with
anthropology and biology. Courses include environmental geology or earth
systems science, selected undergraduate offerings in sedimentology,
oceanography, geophysics, or geohydrology, possibly a graduate course in
some aspect of sedimentary geology, and the directing of undergraduate
research projects. The candidate must have a Ph.D.
Bryn Mawr College is a selective liberal arts college located west of
Philadelphia. The department is well-equipped for teaching, research, and
computing. To learn more about the department, visit our web site at
http://www.brynmawr.edu/Adm/academic/geology.html
Applications, including three references and complete vita, should be sent
to Wm. A. Crawford, Chairman, Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, 101
N. Merion Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010. Email: wcrawfor@brynmawr.edu
Bryn Mawr College is an Equal
Opportunity affirmative action employer. The College particularly wishes to
encourage applications from individuals interested in joining a
multicultural and international academic community. Minority candidates
and women are especially encouraged to apply. Deadline for applications:
January 20, 1997
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=-
Mark J. Johnsson mjohnsso@brynmawr.edu
Department of Geology Phone: (610)526-5110
Bryn Mawr College Fax: (610)526-5086
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=-
Subject: Re: Question on Fossil Preservation.
From: wyatt@netcom.com (Wyatt Earp)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:47:32 GMT
What is usually done in our lab is as quickly as possible after
finding the specimen (especially in claystones) is to round off
all the points, and then wrap the specimen in simple toilet paper.
The rounding is done so that the drying can occur as evenly as possible.
The water evaporates off the points of the rock faster than it
evaporates off the sides of the rock. So we try to round everything
right in the field. It doesnt have to be exactly round, just make
sure that any points are removed.
As for preservative, I cant remember the chemical name for the stuff
we use, but its common name is Butvar. Its an acroloid which is
dissolved in acetone. We use about 5-10parts acetone to 1 part acroloid
depending on if you want 'penetrating' which is good for porous bones
and specimens in sandstones or a 'skinning' to occur which is good for
claystones and impressions (*Note Do not try to peel the skin off
after its made, instead, redissolve it with acetone ;-)
Hope that helps
Wyatt@netcom.com
--
It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.
Subject: Re: Caltech Seismology Lab Helps Pinpoint Location of Meteorite Fall
From: Wil Milan
Date: 26 Oct 1996 15:48:02 -0700
I'm confused about this. According to reports at the time, the meteor
was seen by people in Arizona and New Mexico as well, apparently
crossing west-to-east across the northern portion of Arizona and into
New Mexico. That would not jive with it falling in the eastern Sierras.
Were the reports all wrong, or could there have been more big chunks?
Wil Milan
Ron Baalke wrote:
>
> For Immediate Release
> Caltech Seismo Lab gets location data on Oct. 3 meteor
>
> PASADENA- Should anyone be inclined to do a bit of meteorite hunting this
> weekend for a $5,000 reward, Caltech seismologist Kate Hutton thinks she can
> provide some help.
>
> According to Hutton, any larger chunks from the meteor that lit up the
> Western skies on the night of Oct. 3 may have landed in the Rose Valley area
> near Little Lake. Hutton figured this out by analyzing data from 31 of
> the seismic stations belonging to the Southern California Seismographic
> Network (operated by Caltech and the U.S. Geological Survey). "As it fell,
> the atmospheric drag caused the meteroid to explode in mid-air at least
> twice," Hutton says. "The explosions generated sound waves in the air
> similar to a sonic boom, which were detected by the seismographs. Using a
> procedure that is very similar to the one used to locate earthquakes
> underground, I used the arrival times of the sound waves at the various
> seismic stations to estimate where the explosions occurred."
> Two of the explosions were well located, Hutton adds. Both were 20 to 30
> miles above the Fivemile Canyon area in the eastern Sierra foothills. The
> explosions were separated by about 25 seconds, and the second was about five
> miles lower than the first and about a mile further eastward. Based on
> this data and on eyewitness accounts provided by John Wasson of UCLA and
> Mark Boslough (Ph. D. from Caltech, 1984) of Sandia National Laboratory in
> New Mexico, Hutton thinks that any larger fragments that survived the firey
> entry into Earth's atmosphere would have landed to the east-northeast of the
> explosions, perhaps in the Rose Valley area near Little Lake. Smaller
> fragments may have fallen more or less straight down from where the
> explosions occurred.
>
> The Little Lake area would probably be the more seductive area to search,
> and for a very good reason. UCLA has offered a $5,000 reward for the first
> fragment that weighs at least four ounces.
>
> Hutton says the seismographic instruments didn't pick up a meteorite impact
> on Earth, but this is not surprising, since a single fragment would probably
> have to weigh several tons in order for its impact to be detected.
>
> The term "meteorite," by the way, refers to chunks of extraterrestrial debris
> that survive the entry into the atmosphere and end up on the ground.
> "Meteoroids" are chunks that travel through space, while "meteor" is the
> proper designation for the light show produced by a rock from outer space
> slowing down in the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Any surviving meteorite fragments would probably have a fresh black matte
> crust. If the meteorite struck something on the ground, part of the crust
> might have chipped off to reveal a lighter interior. If anyone finds a
> meteorite fragment weighing at least four ounces, he or she should get in
> touch with Dr. John Wasson at UCLA. Wasson's e-mail address is
> wasson@igpp.ucla.edu.
>
> Contact: Robert Tindol
> (818) 395-3631
> tindol@caltech.edu
Subject: Re: What is the mass of the earth?
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:14:25 GMT
In a previous article, rwinsto@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu (Richard B. Winston) says:
well, actually, the mass of the satellite'll cahnge the (common) bary-
center; has that ever been measured WRT Sun, or
is it just a calculation?
>The orbital period of a satellite (such as the moon) depends only on
>the distance to the body about which it is orbiting and the mass of
>the body about which it is orbiting. It does not depend on the mass of
>the satellite. This is why we didn't know the mass of Pluto until we
>discovered a satellite (Charon) orbiting around it.
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
Subject: Re: What is the mass of the earth?
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:21:15 GMT
In a previous article, s1045099@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au () says:
simple:
we know from seismograms that there is a liquidus in the outer core;
therefore, the solidus within & without obviously has properties
that are not untoward from our usual, peri-surface rocks & stuff; so,
we assume that a)
the pressure varies as it does in water (linearly) and b)
all ensuing phase-changes are relatively minor....
is that a good guess, as to the accumulated nature
of the gedanken apparat?
>>Simple physics, using the equations for gravitational acceleration
>>(Gmm/r^2). Drop a 1 kg mass in a vacuum, measure acceleration. G and
>>earth radius known. Solve for earth mass.
>
>But wasn't the value of the gravitational constant G (not g) in that equation
>derived by solving using the known Earth's mass and another 1kg mass and
>measuring acceleration. So how do you weigh the Earth without G?
>How did find the relationship between G and the Earth's mass in the first
>place?
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
Subject: Re: Three Mars Missions to Launch in Late 1996
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:23:27 GMT
In a previous article, dorman@lee.s3i.com (Clark Dorman) says:
ha, "astronaughts" -- pithy comment on the current love
of'bots in space (Danger, Danger !-)
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)