- Greg Stanley wrote: > See Fig. 1 on this UCLA web page. > http://www.ess.ucla.edu/research/cosmochem/meteorite.asp > > Not sure if Dr. Wasson has written any papers regarding > fusion crusts on irons, but I would think he would endorse > anything on the web page.
So Gregg, if your statement is true, Dr.Wasson and/or UCLA endorses the formation of "rusty" fusion crust actually formed during decent? ( Fig 1 or is it the regmaglyts that formed during passage and they are on top of the rusty fusion crust?) The issue is deeper than the semantic arguments, glossary obsolesence and lies in the differences of origin, composition, and presence of crust on different classes of meteorites. In the old school, a crust is generally removable from the underlying substrate and a dipping in molten metal alloy pushes the envelope of being a crust, however Buchwald illustrated that this was a combination of free metal and oxides. I conceed that irons--most all freshly fallen ones anyway , do have a fused surface that we can by convention call "crust" but the question remains as to what is the crust which is a few microns thick versus coatings and halos etc. There is danger of promoting ignorance by making assumptions that everything which is called crust is identical. I am old school and I have the (un)reasonable expectation that where a distinction does lie, that the collector can understand why things are the way they are and not abuse the descriptions when they try to peddle their specimens. Very few understood the distinction of silicate content when addressing irons as the presence of silicates,oxides, carbides,phosphides, etc largely govern the nature of a particular crust and gives insight into what went on during that miliseconds of exposure when the final surface was formed. Why it matters to me is 1) the abuse of the term in describing meteorite conditions 2) the science of understanding the differences in crust origin and composition and 3) how do we make the distinction amongst flight markings and do they differ from "fusion" crust? I am satisfied that 1)one of the iron specimens cited in this discussion apparently do have a silicate content that provided for a glassy fusion crust and its origin is intriguing scientifically. 2)That by definition alone (fused + coating) the irons do routinely have a "fused coating/crust" which differs significantly from our traditional concept of "crust" even though it is indistinguishable from the interior to the naked eye. (Do folks really "see" the crust or do they see if because it is supposed to be there?) At what point in weathering do we "see" that the welded crust/layer on an iron has rusted away given it is a few microns thick? 90% of the time, the seller will be claiming "crusted" long after the crust is gone, IMO. I've seen little to nothing so far that invalidates describing the ablation zone nor crust in layers--Nor did Buchwald, apparently. Finally, the term "big-head" someone used probably translates to "arrogant" Either way it was used in error as I was misunderstood. I did not disparage the pioneers in the field or meteoritical study. They gained their meteoritical knowledge largely autodidactly when they came over. I mentioned their former fields because when an individual crosses over into a different field of research, one can not just presume that they immediately acquire the entire knowledge base of those who were formerly educated in the same field. Elton ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
