Talk:Meteor Crater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.
Earth sciences Portal
Meteor Crater is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion without Headers

Wouldn't this article be better located at Meteor Crater as the most common name, per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions?

Consider google's results.

  • "Barringer Crater": 5,330
  • "Meteor Crater": 56,900

Now, some references to "meteor crater" may be generic, but even if we include the location:

  • "Meteor Crater" and Arizona: 36,400

So clearly, "Meteor Crater" is many times more popular, and I think Barringer Crater should be the redirect. What do you think?--Pharos 02:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hmmm, I'm not sure, for two reasons:
  • 1) "Barringer Crater" is the crater's official name, and I'm not sure if the naming conventions refer specifically to the proper names of locations. It's true, however, that were this a person's name we'd go by the most common reference.
  • But 2) I'd be worried about making this the main site of an article entitled "Meteor crater." According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Be_precise_when_necessary, we shouldn't "write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings." For the moment there is no article on "meteor crater," but clearly this is not only the name of a specific site, but also a general term for a hole in the ground caused by a crater. By putting this article in the one with the more general term, we'd be effectively blocking out that page, and preventing the creation of a more general article.
I'd go for the specificity argument over the common name one personally, though I can also see reasons for changing the title. -- Asbestos 17:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm undecided on this. Prior to this article, I had only heard this crater referred to as Meteor Crater, never as Barringer Crater. However, I'm just an amateur; I have no formal education in geology or astronomy. Meteor Crater is a well-established name for this crater, though. Furthermore, I do not think that Meteor Crater could be used as a generic name, as it is technically a misnomer—any crater produced in such a manner should be called a meterorite crater. So I don't think we have to worry about; however, for the same reason, Barringer Crater probably is a better name. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 01:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If "Meteor Crater" is so ambiguous and vague, then how is it that in an encyclopedia of a half-million articles, it seems to work perfectly fine as a redirect to "Barringer Crater"? When something is a redir instead of a disambig page, that's a pretty strong hint that nobody is confused about where the redirecting name should go. "Meteor Crater" will be perfectly fine as a name - "Barringer Crater" is OK, but a little on the pedantic side. Stan 05:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Meteor Crater", capitalized, refers to this specific impact crater. Only "meteor crater", uncapitalized, is generic and the (quite rightly) redirects to impact crater. As to "formal names", Wikipedia, is not intended primarily for professional astronomers etc. but for the lay reader, who is much more likely to be familiar with "Meteor Crater".--Pharos 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

[edit] New Nature Article

Someone who knows a lot about physics and/or the crater should go through and make sure that all the information is correct in light of the new analysis from Nature. Dave 00:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of definate article

Hi Pharos — you wanted the article to start with "Barringer Crater is a famous impact crater..." instead of "The Barringer Crater is a famous impact crater...", and suggested I look at other crater names. A brief glance at the articles on famous craters finds that most of them start the way I suggested:

Indeed, this is a style employed when talking about the majority of geological formations:

...and so on so forth.

Also note that the Barringer Crater website, http://www.barringercrater.com/science/ starts their article with "The Barringer Meteorite Crater is a gigantic hole...". The point isn't whether its name is "Barringer Crater" or "The Barringer Crater", obviously it's the former, but when discussing the Crater and starting an article on it, as in the case of the hundreds of articles on similar subjects in this project, you generally start with "The Barringer Crater". — Asbestos | Talk 13:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have taught SAT and TOEFL for 6 years. There is no difference betweeen "The Barringer Crater..." and "Barringer Crater..." except that "the" can emphasize the uniqueness of the proper noun, e.g. "The Empire State Building..." is standard usage probably b/c nobody ever calls it "Empire State Building." Generally speaking, if an article is called for, you must use "the" in this case (unique proper noun). Dudeman1st (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of meteorite, explosive power, and debris from impact

After reading about Ivy Mike, I'm a little confused why a 10.4 megaton explosion would eject 80,000,000 tons of soil while this much smaller explosion (2.5 megatons according to the article) "dug out 175 million tons of rock."

Also the size of the explosion seems like it might be off. The crater left by Ivy Mike is 1.6km in diameter and 50m deep; and similarly Tswaing crater is [1km in diameter, 100m deep], and also [estimated at 10 megatons]. Proportionally speaking, shouldn't Barringer Crater also register in the ballpark of 10 megatons? I'm having a hard time believing it was only 2.5 megatons with a radius of 1.2km's and a depth of 170m.

Tswaing Crater: 1.1km 100m ~10megatons Ivy mike: 1.6km 50m 10.2megatons Meteor Crater: 1,200m 170m 2.5-6.5 megaton

The math currently works out to about 4 megatons for Meteor crater, because the Nature team downed the velocity from 16 km/s to 12.8 km/s and severely reduced the size of the meteorite.

IE/

For a roughly spherical object: 4/3 * pi * Density * Radius^3 = Mass

So, 4/3 * pi * 3 {tonnes / m^3} * 25{m}^3 = 196,349 tonnes

Kinetic Energy = (Mass * Velocity^2)/2

So, (196,349 {tonnes} * 12,800 {m/sec}^2) / 2 = 1.608 * 10^13 {tonnes*(m/sec)^2} or 10^13 joules.

and since, 1 kilogram of TNT releases 10^8/25 = 4 * 10^6 Joules of energy

(1.608 * 10^13 joules) / (4 * 10^6 joules) = ~4 megatons


I just find this to be terribly suspect, since we have real world data of what a 10.2 megaton explosion does and the two look virtually the same. Xtraeme 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can’t comment on the actual numbers, but Ivy Mike was detonated at surface so most of the energy was dissipated into the atmosphere. In contrast, impact craters are produced by projectiles that penetrate some depth (variable depending on angle of impact, velocity, density, strength of projectile and target) into the earth before exploding, so almost all of the energy is deposited into the earth and therefore should produce a deeper crater with more ejecta for the same energy. The best comparison would be between underground nuclear tests and impact craters of similar energy. With impact craters, the target properties are also quite important. For example I’d expect the same energy yield to produce a smaller crater in the Tswaing area (strong granite) compared to the Barringer/Meteor crater (weaker sedimentary rocks). --Zamphuor 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Let's not overdo the number of images - four images, one per section, is quite enough! Also, please consider what value the images actually bring to the article. -- ChrisO 09:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cites needed

For a subject with so much published research on it, this page is woefully under-cited. If you are the one with access to these materials, please cite at least once per paragraph. The date of human inhabitation is unnecessary and both highly speculative and controversial. Dudeman1st (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topographic map

Hello,

Where can I find a very precise topographic map of the Barringer Crater ?

Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.37.125 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall that there is a very detailed map of the crater itself on display in the visitor center, maybe you can get a copy there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.115.181 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmairing (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Citing the museum at the visitor's center

If someone were willing to actually visit the Meteor Crater (which I did about a month ago, before looking at this article), a source of good citations would be the museum itself at the Visitor's Center.

Also, at the museum there is a display that challenges the assertion in this article that "Very little of the meteorite remained within the pit that it had excavated." The display shows a significant chunk of the meteorite buried about as far underground as the diameter of the crater, along an angled path from the center of the crater that indicates the angle of the original impact. --Mosher (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


BTW, the article was incorrect in stating that the BM Crater is located "35 miles" from Flagstaff. I was just there 6 days ago and drove there directly to and from Flagstaff. The distance is 58 miles. A simple check of Google Maps will confirm that. Ronstock (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it not round?

What caused the square-with-rounded-corners shape of this crater? Other craters are more or less round (circular). And indeed if a lot of energy is released at one point without any explicit directional guidance, one would expect its effects to be non-directional, i.e. equal in all directions, thus producing a circular crater. If the meteor impacted at an angle, I could see how the crater might be elliptical, but this one has a definite square shape. Any explanation? Rennybosch (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inability to climb out in a C150

This seems interesting. If the prevailing wind is from one direction, they may have been trying to climb out the wrong side. If the wind from all directions went toward the center, it had to go somewhere and they should have been able to spiral climb in the center of the crater and escape. Not that pilots don't always think of things like that. The C150 with two people has an abysmal climb rate, of course. The wording of the last sentence could be improved - they didn't continue to fly in the same aircraft while pointing out the wreckage to visitors. 199.125.109.123 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)