It was announced that the free geocities.com web-hosting is to be closed on October 26, 2009. So I have to move my geocities www-pages to another free web-hosting
www.geocities.com/olkhov/abstracts01.htm
The last update of this file: June 30, 2001
Wolfgang Kundt
Bonn University, Germany
More than 17 reasons are presented of why the fiery Siberian event of 30 June
1908, near the Stony Tunguska river, was not caused by the infall of a stony
asteroid, nor of an (icy) comet, but rather by the volcanic ejection of some
10 Mton of natural gas. For the volcanic (outflow) interpretation, estimates
are presented of the involved mass and kinetic energy of the vented natural
gas, of its outflow timescale, supersonic and subsonic ranges, and buoyant
escape towards the exosphere. The Tunguska event may well have been the
present-day formation of a kimberlite:
(1) The fact that in the literature, the comet-versus-asteroid debate is
heftily alive rules against both interpretations: an asteroid would have left
a trace, whereas a comet would have exploded too high, also would have been
discovered weeks before impact.
(2) An impacting body, no matter of what consistency, cannot explain the
many (> 12) conical holes in the ground, now lakes, which were formed on that
morning. Nor can it explain (3) the dozens of tree stumps lying around without
recognizable origin, or (4) the tree stump at the bottom of the drained Suslov
hole.
(5) Why does the epicenter lie at the intersection of several fault lines,
one of them running towards lake Baikal, and why does it coincide with the
Kulikovskii crater, which belongs to the Khushminskii tectono-volcanic complex ?
This constellation is reminiscent of kimberlites, as well as (6) the local
surface geometry, called 'amphi-theatre' by Kulik, with the 'Merrill circus'
in the middle.
(7) The treefall pattern, which should be parallel for a low-inclination
infall, is roughly radial. But it follows the valleys, shows islands of survival
and islands of destruction, has (8) more than 4 centers (Kulik's airphotographs)
and has (9) inverted profiles (Krinov), with undestroyed trees in the valleys,
chopped-off tree-tops on the slopes, and felled trees near the hill tops,
asking for blasts from below. (10) The 'telegraph poles' near the epicenter
require supersonic shock waves; they are reminiscent of the Hiroshima blast
wave.
(11) Several eyewitnesses reported a large number of 'barisal guns' before
they saw (12) 'columns of fire'; this order of events, and orientation, are
expected for a volcanic blowout, not for an impact. (13) They sensed heat in
their faces, which is difficult to realize for an impact trail.
(14) The 4 bright nights, straddling the explosive event, will be treated in
my accompanying talk. They require clouds in the thermosphere, reminiscent of
volcanic activity like Krakatoa (1883). Such volcanic blowouts have been
recently detected in the form of (15) rising 'mystery clouds' seen by
airplane pilots, and in the form of (16) 'pockmarks' on large parts of the
ocean floor.
(17) All chemical peculiarities found by expeditions were consistent with
earthquakes, or 'degassings in active tectonic zones'. Remarkably, (18) the
2000 Italian expedition recorded a radonic storm at gamma-rays near lake Cheko,
which lasted some four hours.
(19) It is well known to geophysicists that only a small minority of
terrestrial craters are of meteoritic origin; most of them were formed by
volcanism. Volcanism has many different faces, ranging from hardly noticeable
outgassing through lava flows through burning torches, mud volcanoes and real
volcanoes all the way to explosive, supersonic ejections. In all cases,
rising natural gas is the primary piston.
Wolfgang Kundt
Bonn University, Germany
The bright nights preceding and following the 1908 Tunguska catastrophe in
Europe and Western Asia, 29 June till 2 July, above northern latitudes of 42
degrees are unique in recorded history except for the 1883 Krakatoa volcanic
eruption.
Based on the cometary infall hypothesis, Bronshten (1991) explains them via
thin cloud layers at heights between 50 and 70 km, formed from settling
cometary dust. He argues that such infalling dust gets softly braked, from
speeds of about 30 km/s down to 30 m/s, if entering the atmosphere almost
horizontally and at a narrow, mass-dependent impact parameter which corresponds
to infall heights between 100 and 180 km. For a given mass, this soft-impact
height is sensitively fixed to within some km. Sunlight at grazing incidence
must scatter twice in succession on such clouds in order to illuminate the
western Eurasian continent down to 42 degrees northern latitude.
In order to make his explanation work - i.e. to reduce the daylight
illumination by only a factor of 10^(-5.7 +- 0.5) - Bronshten is forced to push
several of his parameters to the limit. From the more than three 'inferred'
meteoritic infall trajectories, he has to choose the easternmost, at a rather
low inclination angle. For a sufficiently high infalling dust density, he
requires
a bright comet, like Halley's, brighter than could have gone unnoticed weeks
before the assumed impact, whereby an overidealized geometry helps with another
factor of ten. For strong scattering, the grains should be moderately heavy,
some 10^(-9) g, whereas for illuminating distant enough latitudes, the clouds
should hang high, i.e. their grains should be light, some 10^(-13) g. Why have
the noctilucent clouds - at heights of 85 km - never given rise to similar
bright nights, whereas Krakatoa has done so?! And how can the tails of a comet
extend over four successive days, with one of them travelling ahead of its
nucleus ?! (For an outgoing comet, there are no trailing tails).
Instead, I interpret the bright nights of Krakatoa and Tunguska as due to
natural gas - mainly methane - which can rise supersonically to the thermobase,
some 200 km high, where it is reheated both by solar irradiation and by slow
burning (with the surrounding atomic oxygen), and can rise again subsonically,to
<= 600 km. Convected water vapour (from partial burning) will freeze out as snow
flakes, thus directly scattering the sunlight at thermospheric heights.
Angular-momentum conservation of the rising gas can explain its westward drift
from the venting site.
Colin Henshaw
10, Delamere Road, Gatley, Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 4PH, ENGLAND.
In December 1993 I was working in Botswana and I was interviewed for a
possible new contract at Delta Waters International School in Maun. Maun is a
frontier town in the Okavango Delta, and is the main urbanised centre for
several hundred kilometres. It is very isolated, and until about ten years
ago was only accesable by a long dirt road. This isolation impeded the town's
development, but after the road was tarred over, it began to boom. This
encouraged tourism and the growth of light industry, and the town expanded
rapidly. It now boasts an international airport, and several shopping
centres. I first visted Maun in the early 1980's when it was nothing more
than an assemblage of crude African huts. These are still there, but after
the construction of the new road, many modern buildings have now appeared.
During the interview, my interest in astronomy was mentioned, since
from this many good scientific projects can be developed, which can
captivate the interest of children. The headmistress who was conducting the
interview then mentioned a suspected meteorite crater in the Okavango Delta
which is located next to the town. I was very interested in this, and
suggested it might be a good idea to investigate it with a party of
interested students. Soon afterwards I received notification that I had been
appointed to teach science in the school, and I started in January 1994.
During the Christmas holidays I was in England, where I purchased a small
metal detector, to locate metalic meteorites.
After I started at the school I began to investigate what was already
known about the crater. Unfortunately there were two conflicting stories. One
safari operator said it occured in 1978, on August 12th., at 12.30 local
time, and that it was associated with a minor earthquake. Unfortunately this
could just be a coincidence as the Okavango Delta lies at the end of the
African Rift Valley system, and is known to be seismically active. The
strongest quake ever recorded in the area was of magnitude 6 on the Richter
scale, though it didn't cause much damage. A few buildings were damaged
slightly but there were no casualties. This was due to the fact that most of
Botswana is covered in several hundred metres of Kalahari Sand, which
cushions the effect of any earthquakes. A second safari operator said he
discovered the crator in the early 1950's when he first arrived in the
country and that it was known to local people for about twenty years before
that. One of these safari operators was not telling the truth, though for
what reason was unknown.
On April 23rd., 1994 an expedition was organised with a local person
who knew the location of the crater. It was located in the centre of the
Okavango Delta, in an area known as Khurunxaraga, not far from Beacon and Bobo
Islands. It was only about 35 kilometres from Maun, but accessable only by
four wheel drive vehicles. The roads into the delta were nothing more than
dirt tracks, and this resulted in a journey time of about 2h 45m. The crater
was located inside the Buffalo Fence, an enclosure around the delta designed
to keep domestic and wild animals apart. Inside the fence the vegetation
becomes much thicker as it is not overgrazed by the goats which the
Batswana keep in large numbers. Once inside the fence, sightings of wild
animals become common.
The feature is not visible from the road due to the thick vegetation,
so a tour guide is essential before any intended expedition can succeed. On
arrival I set my students the task of investigating the crater. It was found
to be only about 22 metres in diameter, and about 3.5 to 4 metres deep. The
students used tape measures and strin to make their measurements. The crater
was saucer-shaped, and the sides of the crater had suffered a certain amount
of gullying. In fact it bore a remarkable resemblance to the Arizona
Meteorite Crater, in miniature! The sides of the crater were bare, but the
interior was overgrown with grass. The material in which the crater was
excavated was soft Calcrete, a substance which is very common in Botswana and
formed under desert conditions. It is used extensively in road making.
Calcrete is a conglomerate formed from the cementation of sand and gravel
with calcium carbonate. Around the crater the soil was sandy. Using the metal
detector my students swept the area both inside and outside the crater, but
did not find any metalic objects. Nor was their any stony material apart from
the usual calcrete which was found everywhere.
Now that the feature had been investigated, it was essential to
determine whether it was natural or artifical in orgin. It may just have been
a hole excavated by local people to obtain building material. However, people
digging a hole would tend to heap excavated material randomly around the hole
and there was no evidence for this. The location was very isolated, with no
substantial settlements in the area, so there was no reason why anyone would
want to excavate in that area. It might be a bomb crater, but the Botswana
Defence Force had not been active in the area. It had also been suggested
that the South African Defence Force might have off-loaded unused bombs after
bombing raids on Angola during the late 1970's. However to produce such a
crater would require a very large bomb, and the results of the metal
detection programme did not reaveal any evidence of shrapnel. So it was
generally felt this explaination could be discounted. Some have suggested it
may be a "sink hole," - some kind of subsidence feature. However, if it was,
then one would expect other similar features tobe found. This is not the case
and the feature appears to be unique.
It was generally believed by those who have visited the site that the
feature is a meteorite crater. Photographs were submitted to Neil Bone of the
BAA Meteor Section, and to Colin Pilinger of the Open University in Milton
Keynes, and the possibility could not be discounted. Colin Pilinger pointed
out a relationship existing between an impacting body and the size of crater
produced, such that the crater is about ten times the diameter of the object.
If the impact explaination is correct, that would suggested an impactor about
2 metres in diameter. The impactor would bury itself deep below ground, and
if it came in at an angle, would not be necessarilly be located unde the
crater. Colin Pilinger pointed out that a large meteorite recovered recently
in China excavated a hole 28 metres across and 6 metres deep.
Those who have visited the site and also those who had seen
photographs could not discount a meteoritic origin for the crater. It was
considered worth preserving as it is, and any attempt to recover the
meteorite, should it exist, would irreparably damage the crater. Erosion
could be a serious problem, so any future visitors should be discouraged
from going inside it.
Erol Erkmen
Colour Reproduction Engineer
Chairman,TUVPO
My friends and I who have been closely following UFOlogy have read many
abstracts dealing with the relationship between UFO's and earthquakes. This
is an interesting topic that has always been in the corner of our minds.
When doing research for our Black List Page(http://www.tuvpo.com/krlst.html ),
the phenomena that appear to come from other planets, we've seen that most
were natural phenomena and we have partly explained them.
The phenomena connecting balls of light to earthquakes seem to be separate
topics. Balls of light were observed as materials or particles falling from
the sky; burning and scattering light as they enter the atmosphere. However,
this phenomenon related to earthquakes is an expression of underground
movements. Many names have been given to this phenomenon since it has not yet
been totally explained. Unfortunately it still does not have one common name.
There was also similar confusion on our pages but the latest UFO reports that
we've received and the recent earthquake (Izmit earthquake, 17 August 1999)
(pics:http://www.geocities.com/utkualgan/ ) we have just lived through have
shown us that we need to take another look at this subject. That's why we
had to make changes in the content of our page. We would like to request from
our friends who read our pages to be aware of ALP's and to report any of
their observations or research on this topic to us.
To have a better understanding of this phenomenon, let's combine the TECTONIC
STRAIN THEORY with our own ideas and formulate our own theory. Our first
inclination would be to give this phenomenon a Turkish name but, this would
distance us from the rest of the world so for the time being we will also
call it ALP (Anomalous Luminous Phenomena). The originator of this concept
is Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. from Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada.
Although it still may appear as a UFO, the ALP is being brought to
light. UFO's observed in Nevsehir city and the lights that have been followed
all over the world are actually an indication of a paranormal event occurring
underground and indicating important changes in a specific region. There are
many reports that prove our theory and we will publish some of them on our
pages.
We all know about crystals and that there are many in nature. The quartz
crystal is especially interesting as it gives off vibration in the presence
of an electric current and it produces electricity when it is vibrated. It
has many scientific applications due to this special feature. These crystals,
when rubbed together, give off sparks/light.
Sometimes there are movements at the cracks in the crust of the earth. We call
these cracks fault lines (the breaking and movement of the layers of rock
that forms the crust of the earth). The seismic movements on the crust rub
these separate pieces together. The earthquake can continue until the fault
line discharges all of its energy. Balls of light are generally formed at a
time close to this very high energy discharge that is produced, with the
help of crushed crystal particles if there are crystalline structures present.
The formation and colour of these balls of light differ due to atmospheric
pressure.Balls of light can sometimes hang in the air for a long time and may
move - usually soft turns and up and down movements due to changes in
atmospheric pressure. The soil in Nevsehir city has similar properties.
Magnetic fields and piezo electricity formed underground produced the long
observed UFO's. The colours of these light balls change according to the
condition of the gases in the atmosphere; for example when carbon dioxide
increases they give off a blue colour. If our theory is correct, when an
ALP is formed, seismic movements can also be observed in that region.
You can find many examples in our tuvpo web pages. But the latest example is
here. A verification report and an effective proof: EARTHQUAKE !!
(Izmit earthquake, 17 August 1999). Another example is the ALP observed in
Sefakoy and the earthquake that followed. We will continue to collect
information about ALP's whenever possible. We believe that serious research
about this phenomenon will result in a decrease in the number of deaths
resulting from earthquakes by providing an early warning signal. From all
our friends who read our pages, we request that you remain open and aware
to the presence of ALP's and report any unusual observation to us. ALPs, An
unidentified flying object (UFO) is a contemporary term that has been
applied primarily to Anomalous Luminous Phenomena (ALP). They display odd
movements, emit unusual colours or sounds and occasionally deposit physical
residues. When these phenomena closely approach a human observer, exotic
forces and perceptions are frequently reported. Most ALP's have a duration
time of just minutes and appear to show spatial dimensions of a few meters.
Despite their remarkably similar descriptions over time and across cultures,
the transience and localized occurrence of these phenomena have limited
their systematic investigation. Explanations for these phenomena have ranged
from social misperceptions and delusions to some variant of mystical or
extraterrestrial intelligence. However the only testable concept that has
been formulated to date is the Tectonic Strain Theory. It states that most
UFO phenomena are natural events, generated by stresses and strains within
the crust of the earth. The phrase "most UFO phenomena" is emphasized because
the primary measurement is still human observation and classification. Due
to their limitations, overinclusion of events or experiences that are not
coupled to tectonic stress or strain are expected. Highly unlikely but
nonetheless possible episodes of extraterrestrial sources could be contained
within that residual.
The TST was originated from inductive rather than deductive processes; the
data themselves revealed the principle that allowed the development of the
theory.
We as TUVPO know from our research that there is the effect of the natural
gas in the discovery of the source of A.L.P. This gas glows in air probably
by the triggering of the static electricity. Static electricity increases
with the friction of the fault lines. If we can prove here the relation of
the seismic movements with A.L.P, which we believe there is, wouldn't the
detection of the this neutral gas and the measurement of the static
electricity be a signal for an upcoming earthquake ??
project ALP: http://www.tuvpo.com/deprem.html
ALP reports: http://www.tuvpo.com/alpreports/alpeng.html
France St-Laurent
Comm. Scol. Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Centre Clement, LaSalle (Quebec),
Canada H8R 1X8
[email protected]
From November 1988 until the end of January 1989 the Saguenay region
(Quebec, Canada) experienced 67 earthquakes (EQ). A foreshock M 4.8 mbLg
occured on November 23. Two days later, the 25th, an unexpected M 6.5
mbLg shock was recorded (both shocks occured during hours of darkness).
All aftershocks were also recorded during the following months of
December and January.
Following the same spatial and temporal pattern of the seismic activity,
46 unusual luminosities were seen by some Saguenay and Lac St-Jean
inhabitants; of these, 8 preceded the foreshock. Most of the sightings
fit the 5 category classification system by Montandon: seismic lightning
(mostly, reddish atmospheric glow) luminous bands or rays, globular
incandescent masses, fire tongues (small flames creeping near the
ground) and seismic "flame" (or flame-like luminosity). The author
propose a 6th category: the coronal and point discharge-like type.
Most of the reports compare favorably with observations during other
large EQs: Longling (China) 1976, Vrancea (Romania) 1940 and 1977, Kobe
(Japan) 1995, etc... Of particular interest is one report of a trapper
standing near an important fault (Saguenay Graben South wall) and only
17 km from the main shock epicenter, who, while engulfed by a fast
moving bright bluish-white light, heard a crackling noise emitted by the
trees. The crackling noise accompanied the movement of the luminous
body, which was contacting the surface of the ground in his motion.
Before the main shock, radio interferences were also heard in the AM
band (1420 KHz).
Note: A detailled article has been published on that subject in Vol. 71,
Nu. 2, March-April 2000 of the Seismological Research Letters.
Andrei Yu. Ol'khovatov
Russia, Moscow
[email protected]
About 2 centuries ago science have recognized that "indeed stones can
fall from the sky", and soon afterwards almost every fireball in the
sky was interpreted as a rock from outer space (meteoroid) entering the
atmosphere. But some fireball's events don't conform the meteoroidal
interpretation. For example, Corliss W. pays attention on the low-level
meteor-like luminous phenomena [1].
The present investigation reveals that the meteor-like phenomena are
much more common and are not limited to low heights. So the special term
is needed. As till now we don't know their physical mechanism, probably
the term "geophysical meteors" or "geometeors" seems to be appropriate.
What do we know about geometeors? A geometeor resembles a high-speed
ball-lightning. The author's investigation reveals its association with
some atmospheric processes (especially before cloudiness upsurge), and
its gravitation to geological discontinuities (faults
etc.), and such geological heterogeneities as outcrops, intrusions, ore
deposits etc.) [2]. There are also some other possible correlations,
which are still under question [2].
A remarkable feature of geometeors is that sometimes geometeors
release a large amount on energy. For example in the 1994 Cando event 20
meters-long pine trees were thrown away up to 80 meters[3]!
There are also hints that, at least, sometimes a geometeor can
deposit (transport?) some terrestrial substance. Its deposit often
looks like strongly heated, and altered by very powerful electromagnetic
waves.
Existing data hint that a geometeor is a result of coupling between some
endogenic (tectonic) processes and atmospheric processes. And indeed,
similar events occurr in association with earthquakes (a kind of
"earthquake lights"), and in association with a thunderstorm ("classic"
ball-lightning). Apparently, geometeors are in-between these phenomena.
Probably electromagnetic self-organization phenomena play large role in
them. More info can be read in: www.geocities.com/olkhov
R. Foot
�. ���
Australia, The University of Melbourne
[email protected]
Just like antimatter was predicted to exist by requiring consistency of quantum theory with Lorentz symmetry, `Mirror matter' is predicted to exist if left-right symmetry (i.e. mirror symmetry) is conserved by the fundamental particle interactions of nature. Mirror matter is capable of simply explaining a large number of contemporary puzzles in astrophysics and particle physics including: Explanation of the inferred `dark matter' in the Universe, the existence of close-in extrasolar gas giant planets, apparently `isolated' planets, the solar, atmospheric neutrino anomalies, the orthopositronium lifetime anomaly and perhaps even gamma ray bursts. One fascinating possibility is that our solar system contains small mirror matter space bodies (asteroid or comet sized objects), which are too small to be revealed from their gravitational effects but nevertheless have explosive implications when they collide with the Earth. We examine the possibility that the 1908 Tunguska explosion was the result of the collision of a mirror matter space body with the Earth. We point out that if this catastrophic event and many other similar but smaller events are manifestations of the mirror world then these impact sites should be a good place to start digging for mirror matter. Mirror matter could potentially be extracted and purfied using a centrifuge and have many useful industrial applications.
R. Foot and Z. K. Silagadze*
*Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics.
630 090 Novosibirsk, Russia.
Mirror matter is predicted to exist if parity is an unbroken symmetry of nature. Currently, there is a large amount of evidence that mirror matter actually exists coming from astrophysics and particle physics. One of the most fascinating (but speculative) possibilities is that there is a significant abundance of mirror matter within our solar system. If the mirror matter condensed to form a large body of planatary or stellar mass then there could be interesting observable effects. Indeed studies of long period comets suggest the existence of a solar companion which has escaped direct detection and is therefore a candidate for a mirror body. Nemesis, hypothetical ``death star" companion of the Sun, proposed to explain biological mass extinctions, may potentially be a mirror star. We examine the prospects for detecting these objects if they do indeed exist and are made of mirror matter. The possible connection of these ideas to the Tunguska phenomenon was indicated by Foot and Gninenko: if the photon-mirror photon mixing parameter is big enough, mirror meteoroids would effectively interact with Earth's atmosphere, releasing most of their kinetic energy in the atmosphere and possibly ending in atmospheric explosion. In such ``Tunguska-like''events neither meteoroid fragments nor any significant crater would be found.
�.�.���
A.V. Bagrov
������� ������� ���ᨩ� �������� ���
Institute of Astronomy Russian Academy of Science
� 1998-99 �.�. �뫨 ������ ����� ������� ��������� ��⭨��� �㭣���� ��⥮�� � ������ ���ࠤ���⮢ �������� ��⮪� ���-���ਤ � �㭣���� ��⥮��. ������� �������� �� 60-� ⥫��� �⠭樨 "��ᬮ���" (�������), �᭠饭��� ⥫��������� ᢥ⮯ਥ������ � ����饩 ᨫ�� 18m. ������� ������� �� ���� �� ������ ��㯭��� ��ꥪ� � ���������� ��⮪�. ������⢨� ��-����� ��㯭�� ��⥮ந��� � ��⮪� ���-���ਤ �᪫�砥� ����� ��������� ��� ����� ��� � �㭣��᪨� ��⥮�⮬. ��᪠�뢠���� �।��������� � ���� ⨯�� ������� 拉�, �ᯠ� ������ ������ ��⥮�� ��⮪�.
Abstract: In the 1998-1999 special observations in the vicinity of anti-radiants of Beta-Taurides and Tungusska meteorite were conducted to detect possible fellows of the Tunguska Meteorite. The observations were based on 60-cm TV-telescope with 18m limiting magnitude at the Kosmoten Station (Zelenchuk, North Caucuses). Two-years observations did not detect any significant body in the investigated stream. This result denied presence of large particles in the Beta-Taurides and exclude direct genetic connection between it and the Tungusska Meteorite. A hypothesis on two different tips of comet nuclei that produce meteor streams after comet dying is advanced.
���設 �.�.
Doroshin I.K.
�.����
���� "�㭣��᪨� ��⥮��"
[email protected]
����� ����稥 ��।��� ��ᨬ������� �⪫������ �뢠�� ��� ࠭��
�ࠪ⮢����� ��� � ��������� ����� �� ਪ��� ⥫�. ������
�����뢠��, �� � �⮬ ��砥 �� �����⨬�� ��ࠬ���� �ࠥ��ਨ �����
⥫� ������ �뫮 ����뢠�� ��ॣ�㧪� � ���ࠢ�����, �����筮� ��������,
����� 50000 �/�2 , �.�. � 5000 ࠧ �ॢ��室�饥 �७�� �������
�������. ������� ⠪�� ��ॣ�㧪� � �����筮� ���ࠢ����� ��� ����⢥�����
⥫� �� ��� ����⢥���� �������� � �⬮��� ����������, ⠪ ��� � ��த�
�� ������� ���室��� ����⢥���� ��堭����� ��� �⮣�.
����� � �ࠪ⮢��� ��ᨬ������ �⪫������ ������ ��� �
��������� �����, � �� ��易�� �।�������� ����⢮����� ⥫� ���
������⭮�� �� ��㯭�� ⥫, ᯮᮡ��� �맢��� ����������� �����, �� �ᥬ
���殮��� �ࠥ��ਨ, ��� ������� ��ᨬ������ �⪫������ �, �� ⮣�,
��易�� �।�������� �����筮 ������� ����� �����饣��� ⥫� ���
��������.
����� ��।��� ��ᨬ������ �⪫������ �뢠�� ��� ���������� ��
����ﭨ� 15 �� ���। �� �ࠥ��ਨ �� �ᮡ�� �窨 �뢠�� (���業��), ��
祣� ���, ன ⥫ �� �㭣���� ��⥮�� ����⢮��� ����� ᥪ㭤�
�� ���뢠. �⮣� ������ �����筮, �⮡� ��㯭� ������� ��⥮�� �����
������ �����孮�� �����.
���� �� �������� ���⮢��� ������� ��ࠬ��ࠬ �ࠥ��ਨ �㭣����
��⥮�� ������� �믠����� ��㯭�� �������� ������ �ᯮ�������� �����
���⠬� 564,0 � 498,2 �, �ᯮ������묨 ����� ��⮪��� ����� ���� � ४�
��謮.
���設 �.�., ���મ �.�.
Doroshin I.K., Boyarko E.Yu.
�.����
���� "�㭣��᪨� ��⥮��"
[email protected]
����� �� ��� �㭣���� ��⥮�� ������ �뫨 ��ࠧ������� �����
�ᯫ��� ����⢠ (����樮��� �). ���᪨ ��� �믠����� ⠪���
����⢠ � ����������� ��ꥪ� (���) � ࠩ���, ���ᠭ��� ���७᪨�
��� ������� 諥�� ���ﭨ� ����⢠ �㭣���� ��⥮��, �� ���⢥न��
ᢥ��䮭���� �믠����� � 1908 ����.
����� ���᪨ 諥�� ���ﭨ� �뫨 �த������ � ��㣨� ࠩ����. �����
���� ���頤�� �뫨 �������� �� ���� �� ����ﭨ�� 100 -120 �� ��
���業��. ������� ࠩ��� �� ���⮪� � ᥢ��-���⮪� (�. ����� ���) , ��
ᥢ��-���⮪� �� ᥢ��-������ (�. ���), �� -���⮪� �� (�.�.
�����, ������, ����������� �㭣��᪠) � �� �� -������ (�.
����������� �㭣��᪠ �� ���. ������� �� ���. ���). �� ������� ࠩ��� ��
��⮪�� �. ����� �� ��⮪�� �. ����� ��� � ࠩ�� �� ���. ���� �� ���.
���ࠩ.
���� �� ��� ��� ���, �� ������ � ��⮪�� �. �����, ᮤ�ন���
䮭���� ������⢮ ����᪨� ����. �� �� ࠩ��� ���客쥢 �.�����
ᮤ�ঠ� � ��ਧ����, ������� � ��������, ����襭��� ��� 2-4 ���浪�
������⢮ ����᪨� ����. � ��� �� ��ਧ���� �⬥砥��� ������
������� ��᪠ ⠪��� �� ࠧ���, �� � ����᪨� �����.
��䨭��������.��. (��� <�㭣��᪨�>), ��䨭���������.��. (����, ����),
�㤠�����.��. (���, ����)
Anfinogenov D.F., Anfinogenova Ya.D., Budaeva L.I.
��⠭������� ����⢥���� ��த� ���, ����⭮, �����⢥��� ���� �襭��
����� �㭣���� ��⥮�� 1908��.
�뤥����� ����⢠ ��� �� ���⭮�� ���ਠ�� ࠩ��� ��� ������� ��
�⮬�୮-���⮯��� ���, �� ��� �㡬����� ���� � �����������
���� ࠧ�� 10-200����, ��� �������� �ࠪ⨪�, ���쬠 ������筮 ��
��� ��稭.
1.���������� �� �⮬ ��� �ॡ��� ����� ����讣� ������⢠ � ���
����⨪�, �� �⮬ ����室��� ���ᯥ��� ��⮤��� ������ࠧ��, ����� �
�筮��� �����⮢�⥫��� � �������᪨� ��楤��, ���ந����������
१���⮢.
2.��ᮡ�������� ���⭮�� ���娬���� 䮭� ���� ������⢨� ��
�����孮�� �����, ���㤫���� ����࠭�⢥���-�६����� ࠧ��饭�� � ᬥ襭��
�ᠤ���� � ����থ���� ��த ࠧ��� ��������᪨� ��ਮ���. �����
���娬��᪨� 䮭 ��ਮ� ����� � ����樨 � ��������. �����祭��
��⠥��� ����� � ������ �������� � ���娬�� ��㯭��� �த�������
���ॡ������ ��ࠧ������ ⨯� ������� � ���客��� �.������. ����室���
��⠫쭠� ��������᪠� �ꥬ�� ࠩ��� � ����⠡� 1:50000. ���㠫�� ����
���祭�� ����吝���� ����������� ��ꥪ⮢ ⨯� ������ �������
�������㫠�� � ���� �� ����筮ᨡ��᪨� ����� �㯥௮��, ����������
������, ᯮᮡ��� �᪠���� ���⨭� �������� �믠����� 1908��.
3.��� ��� <४������樨> ��室���� ����⢠ ��� �� ����- �� �������ﭨ�
�।�⮨� ���� ����� � ������� ��������묨 �� ����७樠樨,
�ࠪ樮������, ��樨, �����⥫쭮� 娬��� ��� � ⮬� �������
���室�� ����ᠬ.
���᪠������ �ਢ���� ��� � �뢮��, �� ⮫쪮 ���᪨ �������������
娬��᪨ � ����ࠫ���-���ண���᪨ ��ᬨ��� ����⢠ �� ᮢ६�����
��� ������ � ��� ������� 蠭�� ���� ����� � 楫��.
� ������ ���� �� �ணࠬ��� ��� � ��� <�㭣��᪨�> ࠧࠡ��뢠����
���᭮����� ��⠫쭮� ��������� �ꥬ�� � 1:50000 ࠩ��� �������� �
ࠧ�����, �ਥ������ �� ���᪨ ������������� ��ᬨ��� ����⢠ �
�ଥ ���� �㡬���������� ࠧ��� � ��� � 楫�� ����窨 �뫮��� ���
������ ���ﭨ� ���.
�뫮 �ਧ���� 楫�ᮮ�ࠧ�� �ਬ����� ��⮤ �ࠢ��⥫쭮�� �࠭㫮�������
����ࠫ���-���ண����� ������� � �� �।�� ࠧ��� �⥯���
����ࠫ���樨, �� ��������᪨ ࠧ��த�� �����, �� ��ਧ��⠬ � �,
<�墠�뢠�騬> � 1908 �., �� �⪥ �祪 +-10��� �� �.����ன (�.���ࢨ�᪨�)
�� ���ࠢ����� ��-�� +-7��� ��������୮ �⮬� ���ࠢ�����. ���ࠬ� �����
�� � ���쪨� �ࠪ���� �窠� ���業�ࠫ쭮� ����.
� �, ������饬 1908��., �⬥祭� �⭮�⥫쭮� ��������� ����ࠫ���
�᭮���� ������ ��த � �����饭�� ������ࠫ��������� �। �⥪������묨,
ᢥ���������묨, ���筮 ���������묨 ���栬� �㡬���������� ࠧ���
������������ ��பᥭ�, �����������, �⭮��騬��� � ��⠢� �宭��⮢ ⨯�
����⮢. �ਬ������ ��⮤ ������� � ��䥪⨢�����. � �����饥 �६�
��ࠡ��뢠���� ��⮤��� �⡮� � ��ࠡ�⪨ �. ����������� ࠧ������
������ ࠡ���.
��⮭��� �.�.,�����楢 �.�.(�������� �4, �.��᭮���).
Antonova O.V., Galantsev G.P.
���� ���饭�� � ��ᬨ�� �����⨪� �������� �ਢ����⥫�� � ���
������ � ����� �������⥫쭮�� � 䠪���⨢���� ��ࠧ������ � �।���
誮��.
���� � ��襬 ��砥, ⮫窮� � ���祭�� ��ᬨ��� � ����� ��ᬨ�᪨� ���樯���,
���� ����㦥��� ������ 7-9 ����ᮢ � ���襭�� ������ �.�. �㭣���
�����, �易���� � �������� ���뢮� � ������� � 1908�.
���� ��।������ ��㯯� 誮�쭨��� ��⨢�� 㢫������ � ��⨢�� ࠡ�����
� ࠬ��� �।�������� ⥬�, � �ࠤ�樮���� �������� �㭣��� ����� -
<�㭣��᪨� ��⥮��> �� ��뢠�� � <��ᬮᮬ>, �ந�室��� � ��� �⠯�.
���� ����, �� �⥭�� � ����뢮� � 1-2 ������ �������� ���権 ࠧ���묨
����ࠬ�, � ���㦤����� �⥭����� �������� ᯥ樠���⮢ �� ࠧ����
����⥧�� �㭣��� ��������.
���� ��ன, ������� �।� ����� � ᥡ� 誮�쭨��� ������� ���⮢
� �㭣��� ���뢥.
���� �������� ��㯯� �� 10-15 ���⥫��, � �����쭮� ��ਮ��筮����
㣫㡫���� ��������������� � �������ᮬ ���ᨩ � ࠡ��� ����⥧ (�� 100
��ਠ�⮢ ࠧ����� �� 5-7 ����������� ������) �� ��� ���ࠢ�����:
���� -�ਢ��� ��������� �����饭�� �� ��ᬮ�, �.�. ���������
�ࠪ��[1];
���� -���筨� ��������� �����饭�� ������ �����, �.�. ���������
�ࠪ�� [2];
���� -�������� �������� �裡 ����������� � ����������� �ࠪ�
��������.
���� ������ ��⮤��᪨� �ਬ� �� �⮬ �⠯� ���祭��, ���� �ਬ��
�⠭������� ���筮� ��⥮�⨪�[3], ����� ��������� �� ४� ���३ �
���ᥩ� �㡥୨� � 1749 �. <�����ᮢ� ������> �ࠪ⮢����� ⮫쪮
��稭��� ����������� �ࠪ��. ��砫� 19 ����, �ࠪ�୮ ������⨧�樥�
��㪨 � ࠧ��⨥� �� ��⮤��� ���� ��������� �ਧ���� (������⥫�
������) � <�����ᮢ�� ������> ���� ����⮢���� ��⥮��, �.�.
��������� (��ᬨ�᪨�) ��୨. ��横�������� �㭣��� ����� ������
����� ��ᬠ�ਢ��� �� �ਬ�� <�����ᮢ� ������>, ��� ��ਠ��
��⮤���� �㯨��.
���� �������� ����� ࠡ��-���⮢ � �.�. <�㭣��� ��⥮��>,
����祭�� � 40-���� ��ࢮ�� ����� 祫����� � ��ᬮ�, �㡫�筮
����訢���� � ���㦤����� �� ����ਭ᪨� �⥭���. ���������� �⮣��
��������� ����� � ����⮭�� ����� �������� ����� �������� ����.
�祭���� �뫨 ����� ������ ����⮢ � ���ଠ��� <��ᬨ���> ࠧ���
࠭���. �� ���⭨�� 䠪���⨢��� ����⨩ �� �㭣��� �����
�থ�⢥��� � ������ <�����> ����饭� � <��ᬮ�࠭��> �������᭮�
�������⥫쭮� ��ᯥ��樨 (���) �� ��������� �㭣���� ��⥮�� (�⠡
��� - ���᪨� ���㭨������). �� �� ���९��� 㢫�祭����� 誮�쭨���
��ᬮᮬ, � �⮩��� ����� � ���祭�� ��������-����.
���� ������騬 �⠯�� ��ᯨ⠭�� ������⥫�� ���� �����, �뫠
��।����� ����� �����⮢�� ���筮 �᭠饭��� � �����᪨ �����⮢������
誮�쭮� ��ᯥ��樨 �� ���� �㭣��� �������� ��� ������� ���,
����� � ��᭮���� 㭨�����⮢.
���ﭮ� �.�. (�����ᯥ���� ��ᬮ���⮢, �.��᭮���).
Zyryanov S.V.
���� ���ய������� � �孨�� �������� ������ 樢�����樨 �� ��த�
�����, ���� �� ������୮� ���ॡ�⥫��⢮ � ᥡ�ਨ�᪨� ������ ���
祫�����⢠. ������� 䫮�� � ��� ����� ����� � �������᪨�� 䠪�ࠬ�
������� � ���饬 � ������� ��襩 �������. �।�०����� ��ୠ���
� ���ﭨ�������� �� �������� �ਭ����� � ��砫� 3-��� ����祫��� �� �����
�� ���⠭��.
���� ���樨����� ��ᬮ���⠬�� � �����⠬� ������ ��諥����
��࠭ �������� <����� ���� �������> - ����ୠ⨢� ����㬭�� �⨫���樨
������ ����ᮢ, ᮢ६����� ���������� � ���������� �������� �
ᮢ६����� ���.
���� ���������� ����� �� ��ᯫ���㥬�� � ���ਪ�᭮������ ���, �ਧ����
��ᮥ�������� � <���� ������� ����� � 1> � ������� ���ਪ�᭮������
���� ᯠ�� ����������� � ����� �㭤����⠫��� ���ண��䨧�����
ᠬ�ॣ���� �������.
���� � �裡 � 祬, ���㠫�� �⠭������ ����室������ �������������
ࠧ��筮� �⥯���, �᭮���� ���䨧��᪨ ��⨢��� � ��������� ��� �����,
��ᮥ�������� �� � ������ ����祭�� � �������� <����� ���� �������>.
���� ���ࠡ�⠭ �ਬ��� ᯨ᮪ ��� ���.
��������� �.�.
Kovalenko G.D.
�����᪠� ��ப�ᬨ�᪠� ��������
��.��.���⭥��, �.��᭮���
���� ���ᬮ�७ ��ਠ�� �㭣���� ᮡ��� ��� १���� ॠ�樨
����������⢨� ����-���⮭����� ��⮪� 横��筮�� ����祭�� ����� �
५��⮢� ��⮪�� ���㦠�饣� ��ᬨ��� ����࠭�⢠.
���� ������ ���ࣥ⨪� ᮡ��� ������� ����������� ��堭���� ᨭ���୮�
(१���� ���室�) �࠭��ଠ樨 ���ࣨ�, ������� � ��ࠧ������ �����
�
ࠧ���� �⮬�� ��ᮬ � ���� ����蠭��� �뫥������ ����, � ⮬ �
������⮢ �࠭��࠭���� ��㯯� ⠡���� ����������.
���� �।����������, �� ������� ��堭��� ���� ॣ����, �
�������������
�����⭮�� ����⢠ � �����筮� ��⥬� ��� ��� ��⢨�.
�����楢 �.�.
Galantsev G.P.
������ ����⢮ ���ਨ � �������, �.��᭮���
���� ���६����� ���ﭨ� �㭣��� ����� ����� �������� ��横�������
����� �������� ����訥 ���� �� �� �����樨 ��ࢮ�� ��⥮��
<�����ᮢ� ������>.
���� �������� ��⮤��� ���� �����⥫�� �㭣��� ����� �⬥砫���
�� ��襤襩 ������ ����७樨 �� ����� � 1998�. � �. ��᭮��᪥.
���� �।�������� ��� ��� ��室� �� 横���� ���樨, ��
���⥭�䨪���
� ��⥭�䨪��� ����� ���祭�� �����.
���� � ��ࢮ�� �⭮����� ��⮤� �.�. ⥮ �襭�� ������⥫�᪨� �����
� ⥮ �襭�� ������⥫�᪨� �����. ���騢���� १���⮢ �� �ᥬ
���ࠢ����� � �����騬 �⮫��������� � ࠧ�襭��� ��⨢��稩 �
१����� ࠧ��� �����⥩.
���� ����襭�� ��⨢��稩 ᬥ���� �����⥩ ��������: ॠ�쭮�,
����㠫쭮�
� ���⠫쭮� (��⮤ <ᨡ��� �ன��>) �� �㭣��� ����� �।��������
������ ����蠭���� १���� �������� ��横������ �����.
���� �� ��� �⭮����� ��⮤� �뢮�� ���ਥ� ���筮� ���⮢�୮�� �
ᮮ⭮襭�� ������樯������� ������ १���⮢, � ⮬ � �� �ਬ��
㦥 �襭��� �� �⮣� ������ ������ ����.
������ �.�.
Ivanov G.A,
�� ��� �����⭮ ���� ������⥫� �㭣���� ��⥮�� �.�. �㫨� ��� ��। �������� - � ����� ���ࠢ����� ��� �� �뢠� �� ����� ��� �� ���⮪. �� ���� ���� �� �������� �� �������� �뢠��. �� ����筮� �뢠�� �뫠 ��ᯥ���� ���襩 誮��. ���६����� ��ᬨ�᪠� �ꥬ�� � ��⮤� ��ࠡ�⪨ ��������� ��।����� ࠩ�� ������� ��. ���⢥�����騥 ����� ������� ���⮢�୮ �⢥��� �� ����� � �ࠥ��ਨ �������� �� ��� �����孮���� ����� � ���ᮧ���� ���⨭� ������� ��⥮��. ������� ��ᬨ��� �������� "���" �⮫� ������⥫쭮� ����� �� �⭮襭�� � �� ����㫮�� �� 1200 ��, ⮣�� ��� ��, � �������� ��� ⥬ �� 㣫��, �� 50 ��. �� - �� ��த��� ����. ����� ���ࠢ����� ���᪠ (������ �뢠�) �������� ��������� �� �����㦥��� �� ������.
�. �. �࠭�檨�,� �. �. ���ᥢ��
L.V. Granitskii, A. N. Borisevich
���筮-������⥫�᪨� ������-��孨�᪨� �������
��᭮���� ���㤠��⢥����� ���������
�����, 660036, �. ��᭮���, ��������த��, �/� 8678
�-mail: [email protected]
By the some estimation, about 150 tons of the meteoric matter are fall on the Earth every day. Some researchers note coincidence of the periods of activity of the most powerful meteoric stream with the periods of intensive atmospheric precipitation falling. The unique meteoric stream Leonids represents the great interest as an example of possible correlation between meteors and power precipitation. The comet produced this stream is well known as Tempel-Tuttl comet, it's orbital period is 33,3 years. With the same periodicity, the sharp strengthening of activity of a stream, which is called meteoric shower, is observed. Such meteoric stream could cover the average monthly norm of fall of meteoric bodies at once in tens time. The analysis of meteorological data shows, that the winters of 1933, 1966, 1998, 1999 and 2000 years of a maximum Leonids activity are characterized by huge amount of snow. These anomalies have resulted in disasters in some of region. Under our suggestions, the anomaly rate of falling precipitation can be explained by the meteoric dust, which plays the role of the nucleuses of condensation. Thus, taking in to account the dada of regular meteoric stream,� it's possible to make long term weather forecasting with the more preciseness.
� ��⪨ �� �����孮��� ����� �믠���� �� 2*1010 ��⥮, �� �� ᮢ६����
�業��� ��⠢��� ����� 150 � ��⥮୮� ���ਨ. � �����饥 �६� �����⭮
����� 30 ��㯭�� ��⥮��� ��⮪�� ॣ��୮ ������� ����⭮�� ����� �
���쪮 �⥭ ����� ������, ��������� ������ �� �������筮
��������.
������⥫� ࠭�� �⬥砫� ᮢ������� ��ਮ��� ��⨢���� ��������
��⥮��� ��⮪�� � ��ਮ��� ��⥭ᨢ���� �믠����� �ᠤ��� �� �����.
�������� ��⥮�� ��⮪ ������� ����ᥭ ��� �ਬ�� ���������
�������裡 ����� ��⥮ࠬ� � ᨫ�묨 �ᠤ����. �����, ��த���� ���
��⮪ - ����� �������-�����, � ��ਮ��� ���饭�� - 33,3 ����. � �⮩ ��
��ਮ��筮���� �������� ���� �ᨫ���� ��⥮୮� ��⨢���� - ��⥮��
�����. ����� ��⥮�� ��⮪ ����� ��४���� �।��������� ���� �믠�����
��⥮��� ⥫ � ���쪮 ����⪮� ࠧ. ������ ��⥮����᪨� ������
�����뢠��, �� ���� 1933, 1966, 1998, 1999 � 2000 ����� - ���ᨬ㬮�
��⨢���� ������, �ࠪ�ਧ������� ���� ������⢮� ᭥��. ��
�������� � �������� ॣ����� �ਢ��� � ��������᪨� ����⢨�.
������쭮� ������⢮ �ᠤ��� ����� ���������� ⥬, �� ��⥮ୠ� ���
��ࠥ� � 拉� �������樨. � 室� ��������� ����� �������᪨�
��������୮��, ���⢥ত��騥 �ࠢ���୮��� ������ ⥮ਨ. ����� ��ࠧ��,
���뢠� ����� � ॣ����� ��⥮��� ��⮪�� ����� � ����襩 �筮����
��⠢���� ��������� ��⥮�ண����.
� �����饥 �६� ��⥮�� ��⮪ ������ �����筮 ��� ���祭, � 㤠����
�ண������� ���� ������ �������� ������ �� �����. �� �ண����� ��
2001 � 2002 ����, ����� ��������� ᨫ쭠� ��⥮ୠ� ��⨢����� ������.
�������⥫쭮, �� �ࠢ�� ��襩 ���楯樨, ����� ����� ������� ������쭮�
�祭�� ��� �।����� 2-� ���. �ᮡ���� ᨫ�묨 ������� ��������
��������� �� ������ਪ��᪨� ��⠬ � �������� ��ய� � ���� - ������
2001 � 2002 ����.
��᪠���� �.�.
Baskanova T.F.
� ��娢� �.�.����, ��室�饬�� � 䮤��� ��᭮���� �ࠥ������ �㧥�, �࠭���� �㪮���� �������祭��� ����� "�⮫�������� ������ � ������". ��ࢮ��砫�� ᠬ����⥫�� ��������� ���� � �����騥 ����� �����, ����祭�� ࠧ�묨 �祭묨, �ਢ��� ��� � 㡥������ � ⮬, �� �� - �� �������� �����. ������ �� ᥡ� �������� ����⪨ � ��娢�, �⭮��騥�� � ���ᨨ � ���뢥 ��ᬨ��� ⥫�, ���, ����⭮, ������ ��� ���ﭨ�� ⥮���᪨� ��������� �� �᭮�� ��������� ������� � 拉��� ���뢠�. � ��ࢮ��砫��� ���������� �祢��楢 ��� ���ଠ樨 � �������� ���뢥 � �⬮���. ���� ��������� �� 㤠�� � ����ᥭ��� �����, �� ������ � ������� ����⥫쭮� ����� ����⢠. �� ��᪠��� �祢��楢 ��� �।������� (1926�) �� ���� ���� ������� �ਡ����⥫쭮 � ࠩ��� ��������� ����୮� � ����� �㭨 � ४� ����, ���, ��� �����⭮, �������, ⠪ ���뢠��� ��誮�᪨� �뢠�. �� ���� �� �� ��� ����� �� ��������. �������� ⠬ �㤥� �����㦥�� ���������饥 ��ᬨ�� ����⢮.
��䨭������ �. �. (���㤠��⢥��� ��த�� ���������� "�㭣��᪨�", ����, e-mail: [email protected]), �㤠��� �. �. (���᪨� ���㭨������, ����) Anfinogenov D.F., Anfinogenova Ya.D., Budaeva L.I.
���祭�� �������᪨� ���� � ����ᮢ, �������� ������᪨�
�㭣��᪨� �������, ��� �襭�� ����� � 楫�� �।�⠢���
��쥧�� ����� �����. �� �祢��楢, ���襭��� � 1908 �. "��
����稬 ���", �⬥⨫� ������ �� ��� ��������� ��
("�����") �������� �⮫��� � ���⥫쭮�� 樫���� (�. ������
��५���), ������襣��� ᢥ��� ���� � �祭�� ���쪨� �����.
����� ������� ������� ��� �� �. ����, ⠪ � �� �. �����. �� ��襬�
������, �� ���㦨�� ����� �� ��稭 ������������� ⠪ ���뢠�����
��ࠤ��� �祢��楢 �� �業�� �ࠥ��ਨ �������� �㭣����
��ᬨ��� ⥫� � �⬮���. ������ ����⥫��� ������ �� ��㣨�
������� (����᪨�, ������ 1908; ���᪨�, 1920; ��ᥥ�᪨�, 1936;
���᪨�, 1984), ⥮�� � ��ᯥਬ��⠫�� ����� �� �⬮��୮��
����������, ����� �. �. ��⠯���� ���⥫쭮�� ४������樮����
����ᮢ � ������� ࠧ��� ��魮�� ��������� �⢥ত���, �� � ������
��砥 ����� ���� ��ꥬ�� ⮪��� ������ � ��⥬� "������� -
���室�饥 ������������ ������ �� ���⪠ "���뢠 ���" - ������" �
४������樮���� ᢥ祭�� � �⬮���, 㣠��饥 ᢥ��� � ᮧ���饥
��������� �������� "����", "樫����" � "�ॢ��" ᢥ��� ����.
�� ⠪�� ��ਠ�� ��।������� ����᭥���, ��� 㦥 �⬥砫� �������
������⥫�, ������� ��� ����প� � ����᪥ ��������⭮�� ��䥪�
(�� ��ਧ��⠫쭮� ��⠢���饩 ����� �����⮣ࠬ��
30.06.1908 �.), ⠪ � ���⥫쭮��� ��ࢮ� ��㯥�� ������⥫쭮� 䠧�
�⮣� ��䥪�, � ������⮪��� ����� ������ �⢮��� � ��⮪ ��������
��ॢ쥢 � ���� ⠪ ���뢠����� ����⮣� �����, � ��ࠧ������ ⠪
���뢠���� 㣮���� ����⪮� �� ����� ⮭��� ���祪, � ����
��६����稢���� ���� � ࠩ��� ������ �窨 ������ � �������
����ࠥ��୮� ����. ������������� ��ꥬ��� ⮪�� � ������ "������
- ������ ������- ������� - "������ ��������" - "������
������"" ������ �뫨 ᯮᮡ�⢮���� � �ᮡ�� ��筮���
(�������㥬����) �⬮���� �� ����࠭�⢠� � ���⮪� � �� �� ����
������ � ����稥 ⠬ �� ����� ��������� �� � ��⠫������饭�묨
��᮫���.
��⠥� 楫�ᮮ�ࠧ��� ࠧࠡ��� ᯥ樠�쭮� ���筮-������⥫��
�ணࠬ�� ��� ���祭�� ����������᪨� ��䥪⮢ ��� ������쭮�� �
�����쭮�� �ࠪ��.
Ol'khovatov A.Yu.
Russia, Moscow
[email protected]
It is shown that Tunguska event took place during a rather specific and
rare combination of geophysical circumstances on regional, as probably
on larger scale (global?) level. Seismic activity in the Baikal Lake region
had a sharp raise at the end of June-beginning July 1908. Also there were
increased number of earthquakes registered globally on June 30 and July 1,
1908. Regional meteorological conditions were also peculiar. There was
a change from period of clear weather to overcast and
thunderstorm-type weather (with nail) on the first half of June 30 in the
region of the event. The time of the Tunguska event exactly coincides with
a peak of airpressure strong upsurge in the region, which commenced a couple
days earlier.
By the way, the connection of Tunguska event with cloudiness level change
and with the airpressure variations were discovered by the author
intentionally, as they were predicted by his "tectonic Tunguska" and
"geophysical meteors" (see my abstract nearby) idea. In other words, the
tectonic Tunguska interpretation is the only one, which was able to
correctly predict new discoveries (which were confirmed later)!
All these facts point that Tunguska was a result of instabilities inside
the Earth coupled with atmospheric instabilities in very rare favourable
combination of geophysical and other factors.
David A. Harder
63 Colonial Lane
Bellport, N.Y.�� 11713
On June the thirtieth 1908 the sun flared in a particular way, for a
particular purpose.� A quantum mechanical issue arose involving momentum and
transit time, which distorted spacetime surrounding the Tunguska epicenter
for the duration of the Irkutsk magnetogram.
�
The paper "Relativistic Solar Incoming" reconciles the observer data with
Heisenberg and probes the nature of the event with Einstein.��������
������� �.�.,
Shalamov I. V.
���������, 630104, ����ᨡ���, ���� ��., 67, E-mail:
[email protected]
�� �ࠢ��樮����� �������⢨� ᮫��筮-�㭭��� ���殮��� ������ ���
��ਮ���᪨ � ��������, � ᦨ������, �� ����� � ������
⥪⮭��᪨� ࠧ�����, �� ����� �ந�室�� ����� ��������, ��뢠�騥
��������ᥭ��, ��।�� ᮯ�����騥�� ��������� ���ᮬ ��㡨���� �����.
������᪨� ������ �������, �� �� 80 % �� ��� �ந�室�� � ������㭨� �
�����㭨�. ���������� �㭣��� �������� � ����� 11-��⭥�� 横��
᮫��筮� ��⨢����, �����㭨�� � ��७��� �ਫ����, �⠢訬� ��稭��
��������ᥭ�� � ���뢠 ��㡨���� �����, �������� ��ᬮ���� �� � �⮩
�窨 �७��.
���� ᮫��筮-�㭭��� ���殮��� �맢��� ��������ᥭ�� ᨫ�� 5-7 ������,
ᯮᮡ�⢮���襥 ������ ��㡨���� ࠧ�����, �� ����� �ந��襫
��������� ���� �����. � ���� � �१���� �᪠����� ��⥮��. ����
���� ���樨�� ����� ��������ᥭ��, �⠢襥 ��稭�� �� ���쪨�
���뢮� � ���⪨� ����⮪ �६��� �� �ਭ樯� "������", �맢���� �뢠�
��� �� ����让 ����ਨ � ���� "����窨".
�� ����� ���� ��������� ⮫窮� (��������ᥭ��) �ந��諠 ��ࢠ� �ઠ�
���誠 � �����⥫�� ����, � ��⥬ � ����⪮� � 1-2 ������ ��
����. �������⥫쭮, ࠧ��襭�� �맢��� ���� ���뢮�, � �� ����, ���
�ਭ������� ������� � �����. ���� ���뢠 �� �ॢ�蠫� ������ ����
�������: ������� �祢���� ᠬ��� ���뢠 ��-�� ��� �� ������ (⮫쪮
�ᯮ���), � ���쭨� ��।����� ��� "�� ���� ��ॢ�". ����� �ந�室��� �
����ய��� �।� (�⬮���) � �ࠪ�� ࠧ��襭�� ������ ���� ������� �
��㣮����. �᭮���� ������ ����������� ��� ���� �����쭮 ����뢠���� �
���㦭����, � ����� "����窨" � ���㦭��� ����襣� �������. �����
�������� �ᯮ�������� � ���⥣�����᭮� ������, ��� ����� ����⢮����
����⥫�� ������ ����. ������騥 ॣ��� �ᠤ��� ��த� ��ࢠ��
�ਥ� ����楢��, �������-������� ����㧨���, ���⠪�� ������ ����������
��� ���뢠 ��㡨���� �����.
��稭�� �ᨫ������ ��� ��ॢ쥢, ��ᮬ�����, ��� 㣫����� ���.
������� ��������� ��������, �� �������� ���� ���ᨢ� 墮����,
���⢥���� � ᬥ蠭��� ��ᮢ, � ⠪�� ���� �����⨧�� ࠧ����� �����
���⥫쭮�� � �������� ॣ����� ��뢠���� � ��⥭ᨢ�� ���⮪��
㣫����� �� ������ ����.
���뢮� ����� ����� ����᭨�� � ��㣨� ����, �易��� � ������䮩.
�.�. ������, �.�. �㧭�殢
A.D. Belkin, S.M. Kuznetsov
����ᨡ���
�� �ᥬ ���殮��� ���祭�� ����� �㭣��� �������� (��) ��������묨
��⠢����� ��� ������, ��� ��������� ��� ����, 䠪�: 1. 30 ��� 1908
���� ��ᬨ�� ⥫� ��諮 � ������ �⬮���� � �����稫� � ���� �
業�� ������㫪���, �ᯮ��������� � ������ ����������� �㭣�᪨ ��
����ࠧ���� ४ ���� � ��謠. 2.� ������� ��ᬨ��� ⥫� �맢��� ���⭮�
�������ᥭ��.
�� ᮥ������ �� ��� ���� � ���㫨��� ����⥧� ᥩᬮ��������
��堭���� �뢠�� ��� � ���� ��. ��� ���⢥ত���� �⮩ ����⥧� ����室���
�뫮 ���� �ࠣ����� �㭣���� ��⥮�� (��). ������� ����� ������
ᮡ࠭���� ������⥫ﬨ � ���� �� ���ਠ�� �������, �� ������� ॠ���
��⥭����� �� � �� - �� ���������� �ࠢ���⮯��砭��, �������� �.�.
��䨭������� � 業�� �� � ���������� �����⮭�� ��᪨ �ᠤ���� ��த
(��� ��㯯� ����騥 �� 2 � 3 �ࠣ���⮢), �������� ��������� � ���ᥩ��
४� ���� � �� ��⮪�� ᥢ��-�������� ���� ����, � ⠪�� ��� ��㯯�
�ࠣ���⮢ � ���ᥩ�� ४� �㭨.
�� ���� �� ����� ���� �ᯮ������� ��� ��� ��㯯 ����������� ��த �
�� ��� ����� �� ���� ����� ����� (��� �⮩����� - ���� ���� � �����),
ᮢ������ � �ࠥ��ਥ� ��, �ਢ������� � ����� �.�. �ਭ���, (1949).
�।������ ���騩 ��堭��� �뢠�� ��ॢ쥢 � ���� ��. ���� �� �ࠣ���⮢
�� (������ �����) 㯠� � ���� ࠧ����, ���ᥪ��饣� ���� �⠩����� (�⮪
������㫪���) � ������� ��������ᥭ��, � ������訥 �� �⮬
�����孮��� ᥩᬮ������᪨� ����� ����� �ந����� ࠤ����� �뢠�
���. �� �⮬ ᢨ��⥫����� �뢥���� � ��� � ��饯����� � �᭮�����
��ॢ��. ����� ���⨭� �뢠�� ��ॢ쥢 �ࠪ�ୠ ��� ��������ᥭ��, � ��
��� �����譮�� ���뢠.
����室��� ������ ���ਠ� �।���������� �ࠣ���⮢ �� ���
���ண����� ������� � �� �⮦���⢫����, � ⠪�� ���� � ���� ��
ᥩᬮࠧ�����, ��� ��।������ ��������� ��⥩ �����孮����
ᥩᬮ������᪨� ����.
�.�. ������, �.�. �㧭�殢
A.D. Belkin, S.M. Kuznetsov
����ᨡ���
�� ��� (����७� �.�., 1975; ���筨� �.�., ��⪨� �.�., 1988) �ਢ����
ᢥ����� � ᯥ����⮬����᪨� ��ࠬ���� ���� �㭣��� ��������
(��). �� ��⭨����� �⮣����, ����� � ������� ���ࠪ�᭮� ������,
����� ᢥ⫮� (�� �୮-����� ����ࠦ����) ��� 梥⭮� (�� 梥⭮�
�⮣�䨨) ��⭮. ����� ��� �㡫���権, ������� ���ࠪ�᭮� ����ࠦ����
�� ���� ��, ��諨 � �뢮��, �� ��� ��������� ᮢ������ � "��������
ᢥ⮢��� �����" 1908 ����.
�� ��⠥�, �� ��� ����室����� ��뢠�� �� ����� � ����� "��祢���"
����� � ����� �� ��⢨�� ��.
���������� � ��堭���� �ନ���� "⠨��⢥�����" ᢥ祭�� � ���� �� ���
������� �㡫���樨 �.�. �ਭ��� (1947) � �.�. ��客� (1959) ��
����⠭���.
� �������� ���� ��� �뫨 �믮����� ࠡ��� �� ��।������ ᯥ��ࠫ���
��� �������� ��ꥪ⮢ (� ⮬ � � ���⥫���). �뫮 ��⠭������,
�� �।� ���⥫��� �࣠������, �������襩 ��ࠦ�⥫쭮� ᯮᮡ������ �
���ࠪ�᭮� ������ �������� �䠣���� ���, ��१� � �ᨭ�. ���뢠�, ��
�����࠭���� ��१� � �ᨭ � ���� �� ����� (�㬨���� �.�., 1963), �
�䠣���� ��� ����砥��� ���ᥬ��⭮, ����� ᤥ���� �뢮�, �� ������ ��
����� �᭮���� ����� � ��ࠦ���� ���ࠪ�᭮�� ����祭��.
�䠣���� ��� (��宩 � ������) �⫨砥��� �� 梥�� �� ��㣨� �ࠢ �
��ॢ쥢 ����襩 �મ���� � ���⨧���. � १���� ��� ᯥ��ࠫ��
�����樥�� �મ�� � ���ࠪ�᭮� ������ ���⨣��� ����稭� 0,75. � �
�६� ��� � �������� "�ન�", � �⮬ �⭮襭��, ��१� � �ᨭ� ��
���⨣��� - 0,4 � 0,6 ᮮ⢥��⢥���.
����� ��ࠧ��, ⠨��⢥���� "����� ��⭮" ���� �� � ���ࠪ�᭮� ������
����� ��������� � �ॠ��� �����࠭���� �䠣������ ��.
�.�. ������, �.�. �㧭�殢
A.D. Belkin, S.M. Kuznetsov
����ᨡ���
��� 㦥 ������ ���� �� ���� ����� ������⥫� �㭣��� �������� (��)
����� �����⭮�� ��䥪�, ᮯ�����襣� "����� �㭣��᪨� ����".
�ࠢ����� ����ᥩ �������� �����饭�� (��) �� ���⭮�� 拉୮�� ���뢠
� ��, �����뢠�� ᮢ��襭�� ���� �������� ࠧ���� �����쭮� �����⭮� ���
(��) �� ��� ���� �����. �०�� �ᥣ�, �� ���� ����⠭�� �
५����� �� (����� 2 �ᮢ) �� 拉୮�� ���뢠. �� �� �������
�ᯫ�� ������ ����� �� � �����騬 �����⮬ � ��室���� ���ﭨ� �
�祭�� 5 �ᮢ. ��� ���⥫쭮 �� �� ����� ����⢮���� ��� ���譥��
���筨��.
�⮡� ࠧ������� � ��堭���� �⮣� ���� ����室��� ��ᬮ����
���������� ०�� 30 ��� 1908 ����. �� ����� ����⢥���� � ���㡥����
���ࢠ� � ��� ���� ������ �� ��⠢�� 2 - 3 ������� (12 - 48 ���). ��
㪠�뢠�� �� �, �� � ������ �६� ����� �뫮 �����筮 ��⨢��. � � ��
�६� ����᪠� ���ࢠ��� ��䨪���� � ������ �� ⨯���� �� ��
��ॣ��������� ��㣨�� ����⢥��묨 � ���㡥��묨 ���ࢠ��ﬨ. �
�����饥 �६� ��� ������� ⠪�� ������� ��, ��뢠��� �����묨
���誠�� �� ����� (SFE - ���誨), ����� ॣ���������� ⮫쪮 ��
�ᢥ饭��� ��� �������� �����. ��ଠ ����� �������� ��, �맢�����
SFE - ���誠��, ��������� ᮢ������ � ����� ������� 30 ��� 1908 ����.
����� ��ࠧ��, ���� �᭮����� �⢥ত���, �� 30 ��� 1908 ���� �� �����
�뫠 ����ୠ� ���誠. �� ७⣥���� � ����䨮��⮢�� ����祭��
१�� ����ᨫ� �����ய������� �������� � ᨫ� ⮪�, ��⥪��饣� � ���.
� १���� �������� ⨯�筠� �����쭠� ��. �ਭ� ��� ����⥧� �� �᭮��,
�� ����砥� ����������� ����᭨�� ��稭�, �맢����� ������ �������� �� 30
��� 1908 ���� � ��堭��� �� �����ঠ��� � �祭�� 5 �ᮢ.
�� �.�.
Zyukov V.I.
���ᬠ�ਢ����� ��������� �祢��楢, ����騥�� ��㪮���, ᢥ⮢��
� ��㣨� ������ �㭣���� ᮡ���, �� 㪫��뢠�騥�� � ࠬ��
��⥮�⭮�, ������� ����⭮� � ������ ��㣨� ����⥧.
�����뢠���� �� �ਭ樯���쭠� ᮢ���⨬���� � ��᪠������ ���
����� ����⥧�� � �㭣��� ��ꥪ�, ��� �� ������� �줠 ��᮪��
����䨪�樨.
�.�. ����ਥ� ([email protected], ��᪢�)
Eu.V. Dmitriev ([email protected], Moscow)
��� �������� ������� ��� ��������� ��⥪�⮢, �� ����� ����㯠��
�㣮������� ����⢮ ���⨢��� �����. ��� ����� ���� �।�⠢���� ⥪�⠬�,
��⥪�⠬�, �� ���ਭ᪨� ����⢮�, �।�⠢���騬 ᮡ�� �ᠤ��� ��த�
⨯� �����⮢, � ������묨 ⨯��� �������� ��⥮�⮢. ����� �뫮
��⠭������, �� �� ����⢮, � ����設�⢥ ��砥�, ������ �⥪������묨
���ﬨ - ��ਬ�࣫�ᠬ�, ��ࠧ����訬��� �� ����⮨���࣠�饬 ����᭮� ⥫� �
१���� ���������� 㤠 ������. �����६���� �뫠 �뤢���� ���������
�����⭠� ����⥧� �ந�宦����� ⥪�⮢ � ������ �����⥫쭠� ����
�ᯮ�짮���� ��ਬ�࣫��� � ����⢥ ��થ ��� �����㦥��� ����⭮��
����⢠ [1,2].
��ࢠ� ��ઠ �⮩ ���� ��諠 � ࠩ��� �㭣��� �������� � ����
������⥫�� १����. � ��� ����, ������ � ���業�� ��������, �뫮
�����㦥�� ����讥 ������⢮ ��ਬ�࣫�ᮢ � ��⥪�⮢, ����祭���
��ਬ�࣫�ᠬ�, �� ������ � ���ᮢ�� �믠����� �������ᯥ�᭮�� ����⢠
�㭣���� ��⥮�� (��) � ��� ���⨢���, ����⭮� �ந�宦����� [2,3]. ��
�⮬, ��������� ���業���� ������� ���� �뫠 �����㦥�� � ��������
��ࠢ�������, �� � ��������� [3], �, ᮢ��襭�� ����������, � ��, ���⮩
�.�. ���쭨����� ����� �⢮�� �.�. "⥫���䭨��".
���業���� ����⢠ �� � ��ࠢ�������, ��� �������� � �ணࠬ��...[3],
��ࠧ������� ���⢨� 㤨��⥫쭮� �ᮡ������ ��������� ����� ��ࠢ쥢:
��室���, �࠭ᯮ����� � ����������� � ��ࠢ������� ������騥 �����:
�⥪��, ᠬ�梥��, �����, � ⠪�� ��㯨���, �������騥 ������묨 ��⢠��.
����� ��ࠧ��, ��ࠢ�, ᮡ��� � � ������ ���窨 �⥪�� � �������
��㯨���, ����� ����㯠�� � � ��������᪨� ���業��� �।�����������
����⢠ ��.
������ ��稭, �ਢ���� � �����饭�� ����⢮� �� ���� ����� �᭮�����
"⥫���䭨��" �������, �� ��� ����⭮ �뫮 �맢��� ��᮪�� ����饭������
�⬮���� ��������⢮�, ࠧ���襩�� �� ��������. "������䭨����"
������� ��࠭��訥�� �� ���� �⢮�� ��ॢ쥢 ��襭�� ��, �ᯮ�������
� ���業�� ���뢠. �� �ந��諮 ���⢨� ���⨪��쭮�� �������� 㤠���
�������� ����.
�� 䨧��� ��� �����⭮, �� �������� �����뫥��� � ������� ����
�ਢ���� � ���������� � ��� ����� ��������� ���鸞, � ���
ᮯ�������� �������᪨�� ࠧ�鸞�� (������, ���� ࠧ���, ��
������). �� �⬮��୮� ���뢥 �� � �������� �뫨 �����祭� ����� �㡨�᪨�
������� ������, ����饭���� ��� ��뫥��� ����⢮� ��⥮�� ⠪ �
������ ����, �����襩�� �� �������⢨� �� ���⭮��� 㤠��� ����, �������
��ॢ쥢. � ��᮪�� ��⥭樠�� ��������� ����, �������襬�� � �ਧ�����
� �⬮���� �����।�⢥��� �� ���뢠, ����� �㤨�� �� ��㣫���� ���栬
������ ��⮪ (�. �. "��稩 ����⮪"), ��ࠧ����訬�� � १���� ����⢨�
������ ࠧ�鸞.
������� �ந��諠 30 ���, �.�. � ��ਮ� ��⨢���� ᮪��������� �
���⥫쭮��, �� ᯮᮡ�⢮���� ��襬� �⢮�� �� �⢮�� "⥫���䭨���"
������ ��������⢠ �� �⬮���� � ����. �����६����, ����, ��� �
�����, ����⥫�� ����, "⥫���䭨��" ������� � ᥡ� ����� �뫨,
����騥 ������⥫�� ����. ����� ��ࠧ��, �� �ᯮ������ �⬮����
"⥫���䭨��" �뫨 ��������� ����, ����� �� ᭨����� ���������
��⥭樠�� �⬮���� ���⥯���� ��믠���� ����, � �᭮����� �⢮���.
�����騥 ����� �뫨 ������� ���� �ᥢ襩 �뫨, � ���⪨ �� ����� �
�⬥�襩 ��ன �믠�� �� ����. ����� ��ࠧ��, ���� ������ "⥫���䭨���"
�����饭 ������䭮� ����, �� ᮡ�⢥��� � �뫮 �����㦥��. �����
��ࠧ�� "⥫���䭨��" �믮�� � ����������᪨� ���業�����
����⢠ ��.
�������
1. ����ਥ� �.�. ��⥪��� � �ந�宦����� ⥪�⮢ // ����������� �������
� ����� ���祭�� ����� ⥫ �����筮� ��⥬�. ������ ����.�� ����. ���.
������, 25-29 ������. 1999. �. 38-39.
2. ����ਥ� �.�. ������, ��⥪���, ��ਬ�࣫��� � �㭣��᪨�
��⥮�� // ��த�. 2001. N 1. �. 31-32.
3. ����ਥ� �.�. �ணࠬ�� "�����-98": ���� ����⢠ � �ࠣ���⮢ �㭣����
��⥮�� // �㭣��᪨� ᡮ୨� (�������� ����). �. ���-�� ������. 2000.
�. 31-38.
The researches conducted by the author on subtektites have shown that
high-melting substance of eruptive comets comes to the Earth. It can be in
the form of� tektites, subtektites, their maternal substance representing
sedimentary rocks of the aleurolite type, and in the form of some types of
ferric meteorites. The researches have also revealed that this substance, in
most cases, is pierced with vitreous threads - streamerglasses formed on a
comet-erupting celestial body in the result of multiple lightning strokes.
Simultaneously, an extraterrestrial fulgurite hypotesis for the origin of
tektites was offered, and there was conceived an excellent idea of using the
streamglasses as markers to detect the comet substance [1, 2].
The first checkout of this idea was carried out in the area of the Tungus
catastrophe and gave the positive result.� The study of the� samples of soil
taken in the epicenter of the catastrophe� has detected in them a great
number of streamerglasses and subtektites� marked with streamerglasses, which
indicates the mass fall of finely-dispersed substance of the Tungus meteorite
and its eruptive comet origin [2, 3]. The greatest concentration of comet
particles was discovered in some ant hills, which was expected [3], and in
the sample taken by G.A. Salnikova near the trunk of of a so named "telegraph
pole", which was quite unexpectedly.
The concentration of the Tungus meteorite substance in ant hills, as is shown
in the Program...[3] is formed due to an astonishing peculiarity of the�
forest ants behavior of finding, carrying and accumulating lustrous particles
in their hills, viz.,� glass, gems, gold, as well as granules possessing
magnetic properties. So, the ants collecting glass particles and magnetic
granules in their hills can play the role of biological� concentrators of the
supposed substance of the Tungus meteorite (TM).
The analysis of reasons which brought about TM substance enrichment of the
soil near the base of the "telegraph pole" has shown that it probably was
caused by highly electrically-saturated� atmosphere developed after the
catastrophe. The name "telegraph pole" was given to the tree trunks which
remained standing but deprived of top in the epicenter of explosion. This
occurred owing to a vertical motion of� air blast waves.
From the physics it is well known that motion of gas-and-dust and aerosol
masses causes accumulation of electric charge in these masses and is
frequently accompanied by electric discharges (lightning, corona discharges,
ball lightning). During the atmospheric explosion of the TM, involved in
motion were thousands of cubic kilometers of air saturated both with dispersed
substance of the meteorite and with the earth dust raised by the blast waves
acting on the territory and by falling trees. The high potential of the
electric field accumulated in the near-earth layer of the atmosphere
immediately after the explosion can be inferred by carbonized ends of broken
branches (so called " burds claw") formed in the result of the corona
discharge.
��
The catastrophe occurred on 30 June, i.e., in the period of active sap flow
in the vegetation which contributed to good discharge of static electricity
from the atmosphere to the ground by the trunks of the "telegraph poles". At
the same time, the "telegraph poles" having, similarly to the Earth, a
negative charge, attracted to them dust particles having a positive charge.
In such a way, after the atmosphere had calmed, the "telegraph poles" appeared
to be stuck around with dust which gradually fell down to the bases of the
trunks� after the electric potential of the atmosphere had decreased.
Subsequent rains washed down a great part of dust, and the rest of it
together with extinct crust dropped down to the ground. Thus, the soil near
the "telegraph poles" is enriched with the catastrophe dust, which� has
exactly� been discovered. So, the "telegraph poles" played the role of
electrostatic concentrators of the TM substance.
References
1. Eu.V. Dmitriev. Subtektites and origin of tektites // Near-Earth astronomy
and problems of investigating the small bodies of the Solar system. Theses of
the report at the conference in the town of Obninsk , 25 - 29 October 1999,
pp. 38-39.
2. Eu.V. Dmitriev. Tektites, subtektites, streamerglasses and the Tungus
meteorite // Priroda.2001. No.1, pp.31-32.
3. Eu.V. Dmitriev. Program "Tektite-98": search for substance and fragments
of the Tungus meteorite // Tungus collection (anniversary issue). M. Editorial
of MGDTDYu. 2000, pp. 31-38.
G. G. Kochemasov
IGEM RAS, 35 Staromonetny, Moscow 109017, Russia,
[email protected]
������ Two peculiar characteristics of the Tunguska event (TE), usually
not taken into consideration by partisans of the comet- asteroid-
meteorite hypotheses, are very important. Firstly, apparitions of
anomalous atmospheric phenomena long before the event itself (as though
the event has being prepared by growing anomalous state of the
atmosphere and was a result - culmination of this state). Secondly, not
rectilinear flight trajectory of the shining object. The second
peculiarity excludes any relation of the event to a solid body bursting
at a great speed from cosmos. An alternative explanation satisfying both
"peculiarities" is a giant electrical charge following geopotential
lines related to the planetary tectonics and tectonics of the
East-Siberian craton. The origin of a giant ball-lightning (GBL) could
be provoked by "restless" tectonics accompanied with movements of
lithospheric blocks of various dimensions. Friction and pressure of
solid blocks are the causes of tribo- and piezoelectricity seeking
issues into the atmosphere probably under influence of the electrically
charged ionosphere. In any case, some ionospheric events, such as Aurora
Borealis, in their distribution are influenced by lithospheric
structures.
������ A directed flight of the formed GBL along the power lines of
geofield (not wandering) is the most probable supposition as numerous
examples witness directed flights of ball-lightnings along electric
wires and geomorphological boundaries. In fact, the Tunguska event
occurred within an area of intersection of large weakness zones of the
East-Siberian craton superstructure. TE location coincides with a
paleovolcano and sulphide showings, has somewhat increased seismicity
and is perspective for natural gas accumulations. All theses
characterize intersections of large tectonic zones. TE restriction to
the peculiar geologic (tectonic) setting is its very important feature
rejecting an "accidental fall".
������ The explosion energy ((10^16 J) can roughly constraint the GBL
size as density of energy in ball-lightnings is approximately known (1 -
10 J/cm3 , in the Goodlett's case it was 15 kJ/cm3 ). It gives the
radius of GBL about 10^4-10^5 cm. Ball-lightnings of such dimensions
(about 100 m radius) are not registered but could not be rare in scale
of thousand years or geologic time.� The estimated size of the GBL body
apparently does not contradict to the real size of the Tunguska body as
witnesses compared it with the size and shine of the sun disk.
������ Shining spheres and other formations in air often appear near
geological faults, during earthquakes and volcanic explosions. But the
Tunguska body is giant. Its uniqueness apparently matches to the
tectonic situation of the region occurring within as well unique
Tunguska syneclise where� large masses of the Permian- Triassic mantle
derived basalts were accumulated. This indicates at great permeability
of the fractured by deep faults crust in a particular morphotectonic
setting. The area belongs to a planetary scale bend (flexure) of the
crust and lithosphere in a place of transition (contact) of the subsided
Eurasian sector in the north and west to the uplifted Asian sector in
the south and east. The giant flexure of the NE strike, being a part of
the great planetary circle marked with large basalt effusions of various
ages, goes from the South of Africa to Choukotka. It is well observed in
the Earth's relief and planetary geophysical fields. Corresponding to it
a wide zone of crushing and faulting is highly seismic.
������ It is interesting that in this zone also occurs the suddenly
ruined� Harappa culture (III thousand years before Christ) in the NW of
India. Archaeological excavations indicate a sudden death of people,
large-scale fires. The "Mahabharata" epos mentions an "explosion" which
caused "dazzling light, a fire without smoke". This anomalous in
geologic-geophysical sense huge tectonic "scar" is apparently able to
generate though rare (once in several thousand years!) but catastrophic
events. With these terrestrial events probably might be compared an
intensive flash in 1985 in the vicinity of Proclus crater (Bog of Dream)
on the Moon and martian flashes.
��ॡ祭�� �ਭ� �����
�������䨧���, ����� 22, ��᪢�.
I.H.Jerebchenko
VNIIGeofizika, Pokrovka 22, Moscow.
�㭣��᪨� ������ - ����楢�� ����������� ��ࠧ�� � ������ࠬ�
���業� 1100, 1700, 2100, 4400 � 7200 �� � 業�ࠬ� � ࠩ��� �।����
�祭�� ������ �㭣�᪨ [1]. �������騩 㭨������ ������ �����
�㭣��᪨� ��㣮�쭨� ���ᠭ �� ����७��� ����� �㭣���� �������
������� 1700 ��, �뤥������ � ॣ�������� �������� ���������� ��
��।����� � ࠤ��ᠬ� R1=50 ��, R2= 125 ��. �� ������୮� ����
�㭤������ � ���� ���� �������� ����� ����襣� ������� - 1100 ��,
��� ������ ���୨�� ����栬�: ��ਫ�᪨� � �����᪨�.
�������-�����᪨� ������ � ������ ���������-�������
����������� ���쨬 �� 業�� ����殬 ������� (������� 2100 ��),
�뤥����� ��� R1=100 ��, R2=225 �� � ���ᠭ�� � �㭣��᪨� ���ᠣ��
� ���� 1800 ��. ���⠭�� �㭣���� ���ᠣ��� ����� �
ॣ�������� �������� ���������, �������� ��� � � ������ -
������ 㪠�뢠�� �� �������� ��⨢����� �⮣� ����� �������.
�����૨�� ��।��祭� � �᭮���� ����� ���ᠣ���, �� ���� � ��
���譨� ������ ������� � ������ࠬ� 4400 � 7200 ��; �� ����ਨ
���ᨨ �ࠣ����� ���譨� ����� ����� � ॣ�������� �������� ���������
�� R1=75 ��, R2=200 ��: �� - �㣨 �����-�����᪠� � ���-�ࠫ�᪠�.
��墥����� ����⨪� ������� � ᢥ祭��, ᮯ�������� ᥩᬨ筮��, �
�����, �� �.�.���客�⮢� [2], ⠪�� ����ᯮ�������� � ���譨��
����栬� �������, � ������ �㭣���� 䥭����� 1908 �. ����뢠����
� ���������� ���� ����७���� ����� � ������ 1700 �� � ��� ���
�⥫��⮢: ��������, ������� � ��������� [1], ���⮬� ��
�᪫�祭�, �� � �㭣��� ᮡ�⨥ - ���� �� ������ ���ࣨ�
��㡨���� �砣�� �㭣���� ������� [3].
����� �㭣���� ���ᠣ��� �ᯮ����� ���।� ���୮��� ��䮢���
����; �� � ������ ��㣮� ॣ���� ����� ��� ⠪��� �ப��� ࠧ����
��ப���⮢ �᭮����� ��⠢�. � ����⭮� 業�� �㭣���� ���ᠣ���
��室���� 㭨����� �窨: 業��� �㭣���� �������, �������
���⠣���, ������� ����� ��������⭮�� ���ᨬ㬠, ���ᨬ㬠
⥯������ ��⮪�,� ������檠� �����쭠� ����楢�� ������� �
"�㭣��᪠� ����窠", ��㣮�쭠� ���� ࠤ���쭮�� �뢠�� ��� �
���業�� �㭣��� �������� 1908 � [1]. ��������� 㭨���쭮��
�易�� ��-�������� �� ⮫쪮 ����࠭�⢥���, �� � ������᪨ [3].
���⭮, �� �ଠ � ������� "�㭣��� ����窨" � �. ����
�������; "����窠" � 4 ࠧ� ��㯭�� �.���� � ������� � ���⮪� �� 36
�ࠤ�ᮢ; �� 㭨����� ��ꥪ�� ���� ᨬ����筮 ࠧ������� ��
�ਭ��� (102� � 109�), ��᮫��� ���祭�� �� ��� (61� � 27�) � �㬬�
���� ���� �筮 �⢥��� ��㣠.
"�㭣��᪠� ����窠" - ���� ����� � ����娨 �������� �� ��㣮����
������� �㭣���� �������, ��������� ���� � ����� � ������� ��
�� ����⪮� �� ����� ��., �뤥�������� � ������, ��⥭樠���� �����
� �� ��������᪨ �����; �⭮襭�� �� ������ � 2, � 㣫� ������
���� 18 �ࠤ�ᠬ [4]. �� ᮢ��饭�� ࠢ��������� ����ࠦ���� ���
������� � �. ���� ᮢ������ �� ⮫쪮 �������, �� � ��⠫� ����७����
�����; �������� ࠧ�⥫�� �ਬ���� ᮢ������� ���� ����ࠦ����
"�㭣��� ����窨" (1:4), ��㣮�쭨�� � ������� ��������� ᨫ�
�殮��� � ���業�� �㭣���� ���뢠� (1:4) � �������饣� ��
�㭣���� ��㣮�쭨�� (1:89)[5].
������� ��������� �室�⢮� ����ᮢ, �ନ������ ��������,
��������� ��� ���⮬ � ���ᠣ���,� ��ࠧ������� �ॡ�ﬨ
ᮢ६������ ��������� �����⨩ ����ࠫ쭮� ���� � ��� ��宣� �
������� �������. ����������� � ����� ����� �ந�室��� �
����� ����襭���� ⥯������ ��⮪�, �㫪������ � ���⨥� 饫�筮�
��㡨���� �����, ᨫ쭮� ᥩᬨ筮��, ��⥭ᨢ��� ⥪⮭��᪨�
�������� � ���ଠ権 [5].
�������.
1. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ����䨪� �।� � �������� �㭣����
�������: ॣ������� � ������� �ᯥ���.//������ ⥮ਨ � �ࠪ⨪�
��������� ������樨 �ࠢ��樮����, �������� � �������᪨�
�����. ���ਠ�� 27-�� ��ᨨ ᥬ���� ��. �.�.�ᯥ���. �., ���� ���,
2000, �.79-82. 2. ���客�⮢ �.�. ��� � �㭣��� ��⥮��. �㭣��᪨�
䥭���� 1908 �.- ������ ����. �., ����- ����- ���樠�� "��������
������������". 1997. 128 �. 3. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ���⭮襭�� ��㡨�:
�砣�� �㭣���� ������� � ���筨��� ���� �������� ��������.
���ਠ�� IX ���筮�� ᥬ���� "���ࠤ�樮��� ������ ��������", �.,
2001,�. 28-31.4. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ����窠 - �ࠪ⠫�� ��⨢ �㭣����
�������. ���ਠ�� VIII ���筮�� ᥬ���� "���ࠤ�樮��� ������
��������", �., 2000, �.42-44. 5. ��ॡ祭�� �.�., ��०��� �.�., �������
�.�. �㭣��᪨� ��⨢� ���� ����. � ��. [3],�.19-24.
Tungussky geocone is a ring megastructure of Eurasia centered at the
Nijnyaya Tunguska midstream and characterized by ring diameters 1100,
1700, 2100, 4400 and 7200 km [1]. Tungussky triangle to include the
unique trapp province is inscribed in the Tungussky geocone internal
ring (a diameter of 1700 km) detached in regional magnetic anomalies at
averaging with radii R1=50 km, R2=125 km. The basement structure map
shows, in the trapp field,� a� smaller diameter ring (1100 km) to supply
with Norilsky and Angarsky daughter rings. The giant West Siberian oil
and gas deposits are followed to the third from the centre geocone ring
(a diameter of 2100 km) detached in regional� magnetic anomalies at
averaging with radii R1=100 km, R2= 225 km and inscribed in Tungussky
hexagon with the side of 1800 km. Tungussky hexagon outlines are visible
in the regional magnetic anomalies, Moho isohypses and in the river net
pattern, the last specifies the newest activization of this lithosphere
block.
Kimberlits are concentrated chiefly inside of the hexagon, but they
take place on the external geocone rings too (diameters of 4400 and 7200
km); in the territory of Russia framgents of the external rings are
visible in the regional magnetic anomalies at averaging with radii R1=75
km, R2=200 km; they are Kanin-Balhash and Kursk-Aral arcs. Three century
statistics of bolides and luminescences accompanying seismicity and
A.Y.Olhovatov's VNELP [2] also corresponds with external geocone rings,
while Tunguska phenomenon of 1908 year manifestations are inscribed in
the structure of the internal ring (a diameter of 1700 km) and its
Baykitsky, Angarsky and Baikalsky satellites [1]. Therefore it is
possible the Tunguska event to be one of the manifestations of the
Tungussky geocone deep sources energy [3].
Tungussky hexagon centre is located in the middle of the the large tuff
field; in any other region of the Earth there is no such wide
manifestation of the basic pyroclastics. There are unique points at the
Tungussky hexagon centre vicinity; they are centres of Tungussky
geocone, Siberian pentagon, Asian global geomagnetic maximum, thermal
flow maximum, Chadobetskaya local ring structure and "Tungusskaya
butterfly"(triangular zone of radial wood tumbling down in the epicenter
Tunguska explosion in the year 1908) [1]. The unique objects seemd to be
connected not only spatially, but also genetically [3].
It is curious, that the form and structure of "Tungusskaya butterfly"
and of the Easter island are similar; "the butterfly" is 4 times larger
then Easter island and turned to the east on an angle of 36 degrees.
These unique objects are almost symmetrically moved apart from Greenwich
(102E and 109W) and the sum of the absolute values of their latitudes
(61N and 27S) almost precisely amounts to a quarter of a circle.
"Tungusskaya butterfly" is only one link in similar triangular
structures hierarchy of Tungussky geocone. The similar structures with
sides of a few tens to a few thousands km enclosed one in another are
visible in geological maps, river net and potential fields patterns; the
ratio of the sides is near 2 and the rotation angles are multiple 18
degrees [4]. At overlapping the equal area images of these structures
and Easter island not only contours, but also their texture details
coincide. The images of "Tungusskaya butterfly" (1:4), the triangl in
gravity residual anomalies in the Tunguska explosion epicentre (1:4) and
containing them Tungussky triangle (1:89) give the most striking
examples of the coincidence [5].
The phenomenon is explained by similarity of the processes forming
structures caused by their sites in the hexagon drawn by recent
planetary ridges of Central Asia, Pacific and Indian ocean. In the both
cases structuring took place under conditions of the high thermal flow,
volcanism with the alkaline deep magma participation, strong seismicity
and intensive tectonic movements and deformations [5].
References. 1. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ����䨪� �।� � �������� �㭣����
�������: ॣ������� � ������� �ᯥ���.//������ ⥮ਨ � �ࠪ⨪�
��������� ������樨 �ࠢ��樮����, �������� � �������᪨�
�����. ���ਠ�� 27-�� ��ᨨ ᥬ���� ��. �.�.�ᯥ���. �., ���� ���,
2000, �.79-82. 2. ���客�⮢ �.�. ��� � �㭣��� ��⥮��. �㭣��᪨�
䥭���� 1908 �.- ������ ����. �., ����- ����- ���樠�� "��������
������������". 1997. 128 �. 3. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ���⭮襭�� ��㡨�:
�砣�� �㭣���� ������� � ���筨��� ���� �������� ��������.
���ਠ�� IX ���筮�� ᥬ���� "���ࠤ�樮��� ������ ��������", �.,
2001,�. 28-31.4. ��ॡ祭�� �.�. ����窠 - �ࠪ⠫�� ��⨢ �㭣����
�������. ���ਠ�� VIII ���筮�� ᥬ���� "���ࠤ�樮��� ������
��������", �., 2000, �.42-44. 5. ��ॡ祭�� �.�., ��०��� �.�., �������
�.�. �㭣��᪨� ��⨢� ���� ����. � ��. [3],�.19-24.
L.Franzen
Geteborg University, Sweden
You can read this PDF-abstract here.