Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

munroney

Meteorites causing fires

Recommended Posts

let me start my journey from the beginning...it all started in 2010 when my friend and I were enjoying the night sky on some small island in Asia...although I was unfortunately looking down at the moment of impact, my friend witnessed what he said to be "a shooting star hitting the mountain"... Before I could even look up, the forest was lit on fire...within minutes, the flames looked to be growing higher than 10metres. Considering it looked just like a shooting star, we both assumed it was most definitely a meteorite that had hit. To our inexperience about meteorites, we failed to pursue further investigation. It wasn't until a couple years later that I realized just how valuable and how rare meteorites were..the fact that we potentially witnessed one hit a mountain was enough motivation for me to start pursuing what we had saw..after some brief investigation towards meteorites causing fires, the genera outcome for this to happen was "impossible"...to this day, it still baffles me as to what in the world made this forest fire that grew so quick and disappeared by the morning. UFO? Even more unlikely.  during my research, it became obvious to me that meteorites are everywhere...this lead me in a different direction and further away from what we had witnessed on that small island. My investigation towards that fireball went dry as I started to pursue other potential hunting spots. It wasn't until yesterday that I decided to pull out the pic I had taken on the night of the impact (yes, I just happened to have my slr camera with 200x zoom). Although extremely blurry,  something caught my eye...it doesn't appear to be 1 big fire, but potentially 2 separate ones. The bigger one being on the left of the photo, and the smaller on the right. This would make sense that it was in fact a meteorite given the trajectory it came in, and having the bigger one travel a little further...given my friends testimony, he said the trajectory was very steep and the flame hadn't gone out until near impact.  One thing that confuses me was no sonic booms were heard...although recalling the situation, we weren't far from beach bars that were blasting their music into the night.  Also, given the fact the fire was on a steep mountain with thick vegetation, and started a second after the fireball was seen to go into "dark flight", all theories about being man made were completely dismissed.

to my knowledge, meterorites are valuable because they are rare..so rare that we are continually learning new things from them. So why is everyone so quick to back up the theory that meteorites can NOT create fires? There has only been a few recorded accounts from witnesses who happened to pick up a meteorite soon after impact and said it was only warm to the touch. There's too many variables for this theory to be true. Angle of trajectory, size of meteorite, type (chondrite vs iron) and the vegetation in which it lands. All these factors should play an important role as to how hot it is when it impacts, and surely it's possible that the "perfect storm" hasn't yet been recorded..or has it?..6 years ago on that small island in the middle of the pacific ? 

I'm ready for those of you who seem to know everything about something that has not totally been proven yet ?  

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, munroney said:

let me start my journey from the beginning...

image.jpeg

Dude, you had me all the way -- until your last sentence.. Unbiased rational discussion is now impossible, since it appears you've already drawn your own conclusion(s).. And even if you say that isn't the case, you've tainted the "experiment" by dissuading total objectivity-- on your part at least if from nowhere else..

So while you're at it, think about this: Personally, I know of no way for there to be "instant fire" without the source itself being the fuel.. I also know of no way for a fire to "go out on its own" other than when its own fuel has been consumed and surrounding combustibles are too damp to sustain burning in their present state..

What you saw was man-made.. Even if what your friend saw was a meteorite, the scenario as described following impact is an impossibility -- unless the space rock hit a fuel storage facility..

That is all..

Swamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Swampstomper Al said:

Dude, you had me all the way -- until your last sentence.. Unbiased rational discussion is now impossible, since it appears you've already drawn your own conclusion(s).. And even if you say that isn't the case, you've tainted the "experiment" by dissuading total objectivity-- on your part at least if from nowhere else..

So while you're at it, think about this: Personally, I know of no way for there to be "instant fire" without the source itself being the fuel.. I also know of no way for a fire to "go out on its own" other than when its own fuel has been consumed and surrounding combustibles are too damp to sustain burning in their present state..

What you saw was man-made.. Even if what your friend saw was a meteorite, the scenario as described following impact is an impossibility -- unless the space rock hit a fuel storage facility..

That is all..

Swamp

Well, when I saw this thread yesterday (

as it came up on a quick google search that I did, it became obvious that no one supports this theory on here...so I'm reopening this thread under a new topic with a picture that goes along with it. Like I said, it was not man made and built up just seconds after the "fireball" was seen heading in that exact direction. The fire created was 100% from that fireball, whatever the fireball was...UFO? Satellite debris? God shooting a flame thrower? 

 

Also, sometimes the only fuel a fire needs is a little air...and considering how early into the night it happened, it's possible the wind helped that fire grow at a rapid rate. Due to thermal cooling In the night, winds generally die down, thus giving the fire insufficient air to keep going ?

Have you even had a campfire, and particularly one with damp wood? sure it's possible, you just need a little fuel to get it started and a little air to keep it going ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just no.  Nonsense.

I didn't even read the post, no need, this story is old and been told a million times over and it's just not true, it's a misunderstanding of what is seen.

First, he did not see a shooting star hit the mountain.  He may have seen a shooting star, but objects enter dark flight over 100 miles up still, they do not come to Earth in an ionic glow.  A shooting star is a speck of sand.  A meteoroid body big enough to have rocks on the ground is a spectacular fireball with sonics and is seen and heard by people hundreds of miles around.

Second, meteorites spend billions of years in the absolute zero of outer space.  The very outside of them, mere millimeters, is heated up for a few moments in the atmosphere, but then they spend several minutes in dark flight falling through the cool atmosphere and the outside quickly cools to ambient.  There is no documented evidence showing meteorites are even warm when they land, let alone around 500 degrees or so necessary to combust wood.

Just stop it, stop playing scientist, your "theory" isn't a theory at all, I invite you to study the scientific method and figure it out.

https://youtu.be/oVnuFY20st0

Here's an excerpt written just this month by Rob Matson, an authoritative expert:

Quote

Hi All,

Playing Devil's Advocate, I decided to try coming up with a scenario that
attempts to maximize the thermal equilibrium temperature of a chondritic meteoroid just prior to
encountering the earth's atmosphere. The typical formula for computing the thermal equilibrium
temperature for an object without an atmosphere is:
 
Te = [S0 * (1-A) / (4*epsilon*sigma)] ^ (1/4)
 
where the body is assumed to be spherical (the source of the 4 in the
denominator), S0 is the solar constant (mean value 1361 W/m^2), A is the bolometric Bond albedo, epsilon
is the meteoroid's emissivity, and sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.670 x
10^-8 W/m^2-K^-4).
A, in turn, can be estimated from the following equation:
 
A ~= q * pv
 
where q is the phase integral and pv is the visible albedo. Using Bowell's H, G
magnitude system, we can compute q from:
 
q = 0.290 + .684*G
 
The commonly used value for the slope parameter, G, is 0.15, in which case:
 
q = 0.393
A = 0.393 * pv
 
For very dark asteroids (e.g. Trojan asteroids, Hildas, Cybeles), the albedo can
be 5% or lower. However, most NEOs have semi-major axes less than 3 a.u. and albedos averaging
closer
to 20%.
 
The final missing value is the emissivity. For regolith, a range of 0.9-0.95 is
often mentioned. However, emissivity and albedo work hand-in-hand (epsilon + pv ~= 1). So if
we're going to choose an emissivity of 0.9, we should set the albedo, pv, to 10%.
 
So what is a typical equilibrium temperature for a spherical NEO with 10%
albedo, 0.9 emissivity, 1 a.u. from the sun?
 
A = .393*10% = .0393
 
Te = [1361 * (1-.0393) / (4*0.9*5.67 x 10^-8)]^0.25 = 282.9 K or about 49.6 F
 
So, cool, but certainly not freezing. How can we get a warmer answer?  One way
is to pick the time of year when the earth is closest to the sun (early January) and the solar
constant is higher:  about 1414 W/m^2.  This raises the temperature in the above example to
285.6 K,or 54.4 F. Still not warm, but warmer. Lowering the emissivity will help, too.
Let the albedo increase to 20%, and set the emissivity to 0.8. With the perihelion solar
constant, the equilibrium temperature is now up to 291.1 K (64.3 F). Lowering the emissivity
further is probably not realistic for most earth-crossing asteroids, so we're at the
limit of what we can achieve via S0 and emissivity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps that is a vial of acid forming the third point of a triangle...an empty vial...haha

Mike, nice answer...

 

fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Rob:

Did you remember an object is only illuminated by the Sun half the time?

Larry

 ------------------------------------

Hi Larry/All,

Yes -- that's where that factor of 4 comes into the denominator. For a sphere,
one hemisphere is collecting solar radiation. If the sphere's radius is R, then the
sphere presents pi*R^2 of collecting area -- same as if it were a disk of radius R
pointing normal to the sun. However, that sphere re-radiates (mostly in the
infrared) from a 4*pi*R^2 surface area. So there ends up being a geometric
factor inside the radical that is the ratio of the solar collecting area divided
by the thermal emitting area. Now, a point I did not mention yesterday is
that thermal equilibrium does *not* mean that the entire sphere is at the same
temperature. Even if the sphere was spinning fairly rapidly (barbecue mode),
the surface temperature will still have latitude dependence. Just as on earth,
points on the surface near the equator will be warmer than those near the
poles. But the overall energy balance means that the average temperature
of the entire sphere will be constant.

But this segues into how you can end up with a meteoroid that has a much
warmer equilibrium temperature:  its shape. What if the meteoroid had a
shape more like a flat plate or the disk mentioned above?  Then the ratio
of the collecting area divided by the total surface area is larger, and therefore
the equilibrium temperature is higher. Let's start with the case of a circular
disk that is flipping like a tiddlywink (or a flipped coin if you are too young
to know what a tiddlywink is). When the disk is normal to the sun, it
collects the maximum area (pi*r^2), but when edge-on it collects nothing.
The average collecting area over time ends up being (2/pi) * (pi*r^2), or
simply 2 r^2. But the thermally emitting surface area is 2*pi*r^2. So the
absorption-to-emission area ratio is 1/pi. So instead of:

Te = [S0 * (1-A) / (4*epsilon*sigma)] ^ (1/4)

we have

Te = [S0 * (1-A) / (pi*epsilon*sigma)] ^ (1/4)

Recall previously that if we set the albedo to 20%, emissivity to 80%, and
use the solar constant at perihelion (S0 = 1414 W/m^2), we got Te =291.1 K.
But for the case of a flipping disk-shaped meteoroid, we get:

S0 = 1414
pv = 0.2
epsilon = 0.8
A = .393*pv = .0786
Te = [1414 * (1-.0786) / (pi * 0.8 * sigma)] ^ 0.25 = 309.2 K = 96.9 F.

So, nearly body-temperature. Can we get warmer still? Sure!  Change the
axis of rotation of the disk so that it is spinning like a wheel and pointed
normal to the sun. Now the collecting-area-to-emitting-area ratio
increases to 1/2, and the Te equation becomes:

Te = [1414 * (1-.0786) / (2 * 0.8 * sigma)] ^ 0.25 = 346.2 K = 163.5 F.

I would call that "hot". Of course, no meteoroid is shaped like a disk or
a flat plate, but then again no meteoroid is shaped like a sphere. All real
meteoroids lie somewhere between these extremes. But for a meteoroid
with a modestly high albedo encountering the earth in early January with
a spin axis that maximizes the amount of its surface area oriented
toward the sun, the rock could actually start out hot.  --Rob

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

 There is no documented evidence showing meteorites are even warm when they land, let alone around 500 degrees or so necessary to combust wood.

Just stop it.

Mike, can you please explain how the buzzard coulee meteorite melted itself into the ice if it was no warmer than the outside air? 

Also, have you ever started fire by rubbing 2 sticks together, or even held a magnifying glass under the sun? 500 degrees sounds like a number you just pulled out of your ass ?

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's much more if you look for it, the above is trying to determine how hot a body could potentially be before it enters the atmosphere, but end of the day the answer is no, meteorites can never/have never/will never start fires.  Unless it's a mega-impact, crater forming or airburst style, those have the potential.  "Shooting stars" and all other meteorites falls and finds do not.  End of story.  Move along with your passive aggressive postings, you want so bad to be right and to prove us (or is it just me?) wrong but you don't even understand what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, munroney said:

Mike, can you please explain how the buzzard coulee meteorite melted itself into the ice if it was no warmer than the outside air? 

Also, have you ever started fire by rubbing 2 sticks together, or even held a magnifying glass under the sun? 500 degrees sounds like a number you just pulled out of your ass ?

 

I will, but I shouldn't, you should read and find out yourself.  There's more to life than pictures.

The BC meteorites are black, they absorbed the heat of the sun sitting there, they got warm, melting the ice.  They sank in a bit, and at night the ice refroze.  This is well known already.

Wood combusts at Fahrenheit 451, it is a generally known scientific fact (and a good book).  No, I did not pull 500* out of my ass.

Science always wins.  Peer reviewed science, specifically.  Read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

Move along with your passive aggressive postings, you want so bad to be right and to prove us (or is it just me?) wrong but you don't even understand what you are talking about

I want so bad to have sufficient evidence as to not pursue this fire that we witnessed almost immediately after a fireball that was seen heading in that exact direction literally a split second before. Coincidence? Im thinking its not. Wood may burn at roughly 500 degrees, but what about dry grass, and the sticks and twigs that surround it? Is this hard wood or soft wood? Dry, damp or wet? So many variables that it's literally impossible to assume that what we saw was nothing but a man made fire and a mere coincidence. ?

"Expert" ken Mitchell seems to think it's quite possible...with 33k people backing his theory. 

And considering the average temperature for buzzard coulee area when the meteorite hit is -8 to -17, your theory of it heating enough by the sun to melt it's way into the ice is absurd. Have you even been in those conditions before? I'll tell ya, the sun doesn't help a darn thing. Black or white, it's staying frozen 

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space rock  impacts  basalt, tourmaline, granite, quartz, quartzite, iron pyrite, chert, flint, marcasite, spessartine garnet, obsidian, gneiss.
( all  sparkable minerals), and ignites dry grass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincidence, yes, that is all.  Happens all the time, thousands of stories of people seeing a shooting star "fall just over there", but they're all all just mistaken eye witnesses.  Eye witness testimony is some of the least reliable.  And before you question that statement, do the research, it is well documented.

451* for dry wood, for grass, for paper even.  All the same.

No, it is not "literally impossible", please see the definition of literally.

Who's Ken Mitchell?  Never heard of him, I assure you he is not a meteorite expert, he doesn't know what he's talking about (google "ken mitchell meteorite" and you'll see nothing - then try "rob matson meteorite" for example).  More people being wrong doesn't make it right.  Don't do meteorite "research" on answers.com, try a peer reviewed scientific journal or publication.  Check out the Meteoritical Society for example: http://www.meteoriticalsociety.org/

[apology retracted]

Speculation is cool, your interest is welcomed, but please do some homework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

 

And I want to apologize if my posts come off a bit aggressive, I may have mistaken you for someone else.

Nope, it's me, that dummy who posted a bunch of terrestrial rocks containing iron oxide veins and who doesn't know squat when it comes to hunting meteorites. So far I only have  a sad 15 kilos in my collection, but that's probably peanuts compared to yours. You've tracked hundreds of miles and been as far as 3 states. Impressive ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say its possible I mean just ask the dinosaurs if there was a fire or not i think they would agree XD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, munroney said:

Nope, it's me, that dummy who posted a bunch of terrestrial rocks containing iron oxide veins and who doesn't know squat when it comes to hunting meteorites. So far I only have  a sad 15 kilos in my collection, but that's probably peanuts compared to yours. You've tracked hundreds of miles and been as far as 3 states. Impressive ? 

Never mind, I take back my apology if you're going to be an ass like that.  If you wanna wave dicks come out and meet me in the field, we'll do it with a bottle of whiskey around a camp fire.  I do not engage in nonsense like this online.  Go back to your thread, I never said your rocks were terrestrial.  In fact I think in my first post I said a few appear to be meteorites.

 

19 minutes ago, chris1987 said:

I say its possible I mean just ask the dinosaurs if there was a fire or not i think they would agree XD

 

Not the same type of event we are discussing, at all.  There were no meteorites, the fires were generated by energy release of impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, weaver hillbille said:

Space rock  impacts  basalt, tourmaline, granite, quartz, quartzite, iron pyrite, chert, flint, marcasite, spessartine garnet, obsidian, gneiss.
( all  sparkable minerals), and ignites dry grass...

And how often do you think that happens?  If your answer is anything other than "never" then you are delusional.  Just because something can happen doesn't mean it has or ever will.  You could win the lottery while getting struck by lightning in a shark attack, too, but probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, munroney said:

I want so bad to have sufficient evidence

You can want until you are blue in the face, but that isn't how science works.  With no evidence, your theory must be abandoned and an alternative sought.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

Never mind, I take back my apology if you're going to be an ass like that.  If you wanna wave dicks come out and meet me in the field, I'll beat you silly with mine.  I do not engage in nonsense like this online.  Go back to your thread, I never said your rocks were terrestrial.  In fact I think in my first post I said a few appear to be meteorites.

 

Not the same type of event we are discussing, at all.

Haha I would have accepted if it wasn't a sarcastic one. I only accept sincerity, or else yes, I will slap you with my big D. I would love to accept your offer to come out into the field, but I don't hunt in children's playgrounds. I've offered for you to come out with me, but obviously my big pee pee intimidates you ?

Mike, if you don't engage in nonsense, why do you start it? and yes, you did say they were terrestrial..I know you have probably seen many people come and go here posting pics of silly rocks, but maybe, just maybe a newbie came along and actually just found something worth posting. Don't get frustrated if he doesn't tell you the location right away, accept that he's still new and doesn't want to blow the location the second he finds it.  Work with him, not against him, because who knows, maybe one day he will show you that spot and you can have your turn at the easy pickings. I'm here to learn from the professionals such as yourself, and possibly make a contact or 2 for future hunts, opportunities, advice...I'm not here to be shot down and if that's how it will be, I have no problem working alone ?image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

Not the same type of event were discussing, at all

I see you have a sense of humor, maybe its because i agreed with munrooney and you seem to have some kinda school yard crush on him.

I say go there and get the evidence rooney I believe anythings possible.

We are learning new things every day no one knows everything.

The only way we advance as a society is because of the people who look to the possibility of the future and not focus on the facts of the past.

If it even has 1% chance of being possible its still possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikestang said:

You can want until you are blue in the face, but that isn't how science works.  With no evidence, your theory must be abandoned and an alternative sought.

 

No evidence? I don't have the evidence because I haven't yet looked in the burnt area for meteorites...? What I have right now is sufficienct evidence to carry out that search, and if I come up with nothing, yes, I I'll abandon my theory...shooting star plus rapid fire is good enough for me to continue my investigation...and if all else fails, I'll enjoy the beautiful beach at the end of the day. Thanks for your time, and negativity, and dick head comments. It's been a blast ?

By the way; you'd get a lot more respect if you'd just give respect instead of shitting on everyone. There's a nice way to say things, and then there's your way. You don't seem to have any problem burning any bridge you ever go over. Good luck with your journey. I'm sure you don't go far enough to cross any bridges anyways ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apology was sincere, I did mean it.  How you can read sarcasm, an emotion, into a font on a computer screen is in your head.

Show me via a quote where I said your rocks were terrestrial.  You can't because I never said such a thing.  The quote you posted says nothing to that effect.  Work more on reading comprehension.

Make all the excuses you want, I will be in Holbrook this Saturday, come say hi, I'll buy you a beer.  And I edited my post for tact, but you already quoted it so whatever.  I'm really a friendly guy, I get along with everyone, I do not burn bridges.  But if you start talking bullsiht in front of me I'm going to tell you if you're wrong.  I never made a bridge with you, so get over yourself and your one successful (lucky) hunt.

Do not presume to tell me what to do or how to act.

Respect is earned, never given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chris1987 said:

I see you have a sense of humor, maybe its because i agreed with munrooney and you seem to have some kinda school yard crush on him.

I say go there and get the evidence rooney I believe anythings possible.

We are learning new things every day no one knows everything.

The only way we advance as a society is because of the people who look to the possibility of the future and not focus on the facts of the past.

If it even has 1% chance of being possible its still possible.

Now you're just paraphrasing what I said in another post, about the crush.  Be original next time.

Please learn science, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to have logical discussions with illogical people.

 

I notice that all your guys' subsequent posts to my science are personal attacks.  You cannot refute what you cannot dispute.

 

Stick to the facts or you fall flat on your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

 My apology was sincere, I did mean it.  How you can read sarcasm, an emotion, into a font on a computer screen is in your head.

Show me via a quote where I said your rocks were terrestrial.  You can't because I never said such a thing.  The quote you posted says nothing to that effect.  Work more on reading comprehension.

Make all the excuses you want, I will be in Holbrook this Saturday, come say hi, I'll buy you a beer.  And I edited my post for tact, but you already quoted it so whatever.  I'm really a friendly guy, I get along with everyone, I do not burn bridges.  I never made a bridge with you, so get over yourself and your one successful (lucky) hunt.

Do not presume to tell me what to do or how to act.

Respect is earned, never given.

Aww shucks Mike, you made me tear up with your opening line ❤️...although I am wondering who you confused me with..that soinded like the sarcastic part.

I thought hematite is terrestrial? I better hit the books more ?

I was hoping my expedition gave me a little bit of respect, but It's becoming obvious that no matter how many kilos you find, unless you are literate and scientifically intelligent, you will not be respected. 

But one last thought...science is advancing everyday..so who's to say that what we witnessed wasn't in fact a meteorite. I know it's hard believe some newbie, but I can almost gaurentee if that was you that witnessed the shooting star, followed by a forest fire, you would be climbing that mountain the next day...maybe not with high hopes, but it would sure be hard to walk away from that one. Wouldn't it sure be rewarding to rewrite the science books? It's been done before, many times ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mikestang said:

Now you're just paraphrasing what I said in another post, about the crush.  Be original next time.

Please learn science, thank you.

senile in denial

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...