[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: extinction



Thanks, Dewey, I appreciate your sending the reference and found it
quite interesting.  You're a remarkable mine of information and have
obviously done your homework.

Based on their numbers, it looks like the URL calculations are for an
impactor on the small side of the average mass anticipated for the
impactor, traveling at a velocity on the low side of the range
anticipated.  Their calculations of transient crater size seem to
indicate a transient crater diameter about 70% of their estimate of the
actual transient size of the Chickxulub crater.  They appear to estimate
that a 'cylinder' of water about 100 meters deep and about 38 to 59
miles in diameter was vaporised, somewhat smaller in diameter than the
transient crater itself, for which they say the average was about 84
miles while the calculation was for an average transient crater diameter
of 60 miles.
All the best,
Jim

Dewey M. McLean wrote:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:ORqR0rkOnL8J:www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impacts97/pdf/6095.pdf+chicxulub+water+vapor&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> 
> For the duration of time that the hydrologic cycle was disrupted,..... 
> Perhaps the impact modelers on the list might provide
> help on this topic.
> 
> Cordially,
> Dewey